David-Kevin: Lindsay: The Unlicensed Man

[Dr. Caligari]

I think Canadian OPCA ideas are almost always copies of old American ideas

...hence the repeated reliance on Black's Law Dictionary.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I had planned to do some gardening today, but instead there's quite the rain outside. So instead I did a little data collection in preparation for another installment of ...

32 Quatloos Vignettes About David-Kevin: Lindsay

Vignette #5 – Dave in the British Columbia Courts - Part 1 - Criminal!

What I have attempted to do here is go through all the B.C. Courts Online criminal records and integrate that with reported case law on criminal proceedings in that province against David-Kevin: Lindsay. This is a sketch timeline - I have not attempted to detail all the twists, turns, and arguments. I have organized these in a roughly chronological manner - the complication is that these proceedings overlap.

10559

Court Record

• - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(1) – driving without a licence on Aug. 27, 2001 in Merritt B.C.
  - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(3)(b) – driving without on Aug. 27, 2001 in Merritt B.C.
  - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 13(1)(b) – driving without current licence plates on Aug. 27, 2001 in Merritt B.C.
  - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 46(1) – failing to pay the prescribed toll on Aug. 27, 2001 in Merritt B.C.
  - found guilty of the first three charges, not guilty of the 46(1) charge on March 25, 2002, fined $546.

Case Law Record

• - unsuccessfully appealed in R. v. Lindsay, 2002 BCSC 248 (http://canlii.ca/t/4w76), then unsuccessfully appealed in R. v. Lindsay, 2002 BCCA 687 (http://canlii.ca/t/5f63).
  - unsuccessfully appealed in R. v. Lindsay, 2003 BCSC 1203 (http://canlii.ca/t/578t), leave denied by the Court of Appeal (unreported) on July 13, 2005 (see Attorney General of B.C. v. Lindsay, 2007 BCCA 165 at para. 9 (http://canlii.ca/t/1qww6)).

47627908

Court Record

• – Motor Vehicle Act, s. 220(4) – not wearing a seat belt on Jan. 6, 2003 in Kelowna B.C.
  - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(1) – driving without a licence on Jan. 6, 2003 in Kelowna B.C.
  - “Deemed to not be disputed” on March 17, 2004, Kelowna Law Courts, no penalty indicated.

Case Law Record

• - unsuccessfully appeal in HMTQ v. Lindsay, 2004 BCSC 1181 (http://canlii.ca/t/1hsfx), Lindsay had been deemed to have pled guilty at trial when he didn’t show up.

59021

Court Record

• - five counts of Income Tax Act, s. 238(1) - failure to comply with the Income Tax Act on October 23, 2003 in Kelowna B.C.
  - Criminal Code, s. 145(2)(b) – failure to appear in court on March 17, 2004 in Kelowna B.C.
  - Criminal Code, s. 145(2)(b) – failure to appear in court on June 26, 2008 in Kelowna B.C.
  - this set of charges has a very complex history. It appears that Lindsay was found guilty on all five income tax charges on Nov. 24, 2008, and fined $1150 per offence, with a 30 day sentence per offence, less 8 days for pre-trial detention. However, on Jun 17, 2010 all the tax charges were then successfully appealed on June 17, 2010.
  - Lindsay was found guilty of a failure to appear charge and fined $287.50 on Jan. 13, 2010.

Case Law Record

• - unsuccessfully challenged the court’s authority in R. v. Lindsay, 2005 BCSC 484 (http://canlii.ca/t/1k378), then unsuccessfully appealed in R. v. David Lindsay (David-Kevin: Lindsay), 2006 BCCA 150 (http://canlii.ca/t/1mwz0).
  - unsuccessfully argued the trial judge was biased in R. v. Lindsay - Excerpt Reasons for Ruling, 2005 BCPC 84 (http://canlii.ca/t/1jzss), then unsuccessfully appeal in R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCSC 188 (http://canlii.ca/t/1mkjk) along with a challenge to the trial judge’s refusal to take the stand himself.
  - Lindsay is found guilty on all five charges of having failed to file a tax return in R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203 (http://canlii.ca/t/20phq), the March 17, 2004 failure to appear charge is dismissed.
  - Lindsay makes a partially successful appeal in R. v. Lindsay, 2010 BCSC 831 (http://canlii.ca/t/2b6nc) where the convictions are confirmed. The $5000 total fine remains, however the jail term is reduced from 150 days to 30 days (sentences changed from consecutive to concurrent).
  - Application for leave to appeal is denied: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (http://canlii.ca/t/2g1sx).

8253495

Court Record

• - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 220(4) – not wearing a seat belt on April 4, 2004 in Kelowna B.C.
  - “Deemed to not be disputed” on Nov. 16, 2004, Kelowna Law Courts, no penalty indicated.

Case Law Record

• - none apparent.

17985071

Court Record

• – Motor Vehicle Act, s. 220(4) – not wearing a seat belt on Jan. 18, 2006 in Kelowna B.C.
  - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 73(2) – failure to identify and provide address on request to police on Jan. 18, 2006 in Kelowna B.C.
  - found guilty on both charges on Feb. 9, 2009 in Kelowna Law Courts, fined $138.
  - Criminal Code s. 734.3 – charge for not paying a fine on Feb. 24, 2009.
  - the results of this is unclear, though the court granted the s. 734.3 application.

Case Law Record

• - unsuccessful application for disclosure in R. v. Lindsay, 2007 BCPC 335 (http://canlii.ca/t/1tt1c).
  - premature appeal in R. v. Lindsay, 2009 BCSC 482 (http://canlii.ca/t/232n2), though the crown invites dismissal of the s. 73(2) conviction.

15311963

Court Record

• - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(1) – driving without a licence on Feb. 3, 2006 in Kelowna B.C.
  - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(3)(b) – driving without insurance on Feb. 3, 2006 in Kelowna B.C.
  – Motor Vehicle Act, s. 13(1)(a) – driving without a licence on Feb. 3, 2006 in Penticton B.C.
  - found guilty on all three charges on Feb. 9, 2009 in Kelowna Law Courts, fined $845
  - this subsequently was followed by charges of:
  • - Criminal Code, s. 734.3 – charge for not paying a fine on Feb. 24, 2009
    - “OFF – 16(2) Affidavit: fail to dispute in 30 days + 14 days” on May 29, 2009
  - the results of these are unclear, though the court granted the s. 734.3 application.

Case Law Record

• - unsuccessful application for disclosure in R. v. Lindsay, 2007 BCPC 335 (http://canlii.ca/t/1tt1c).

70947

Court Record

• - Income Tax Act, s. 238(1) – failure to comply with the Income Tax Act on July 2, 2009 in Kelowna B.C.
  - found guilty on July 30, 2012 in the Kelowna Law Courts, sentenced to 60 days in jail.

Case Law Record

• - none apparent.

66535744

Court Record

• – Motor Vehicle Act, s. 220(4) – not wearing a seat belt on April 18, 2012 in Maple Ridge, B.C.
  - “Deemed to not be disputed” on July 16, 2013, Port Coquitlam Provincial Court, no penalty indicated.

Case Law Record

• - none apparent.

A brief commentary: though Dave is, of course, best known for as perhaps the mightiest of the Detaxers, his actual tax litigation amounts to only two prosecutions. Interestingly, and in a twist of style, Dave does not appear to have fought the 2009 conviction but just served out his time.

Otherwise, Dave was and remains "a travellin' man".

There is a possibility that there are additional unreported criminal actions and convictions that occurred at the British Columbia Supreme Court level but my suspicion is that someone would have referenced those, somewhere.

Oh, and judging from that track record I think it's safe to say that Dave's legal arguments don't work.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

It seems unfair to simply say "Dave did this" and "Dave did that", so why not look to the future, to that brighter tomorrow where Dave will move mountains, smash authorities, and generally get his way.

Wanna watch? Well, if you do, then it's time for another of our ongoing series of ...

32 Quatloos Vignettes About David-Kevin: Lindsay

Vignette #6 – Dave in the British Columbia Courts - Part 2 - Accused!

Turns out that Dave at present has not one, two, but four prosecutions ongoing. I provide this summary to both inform on what the Unlicensed Man is up to, and to provide you, gentle reader, with the opportunity to attend and view one of Dave's impending court appearances.

('Cause you know you want to. Admit it.)

(... and don't forget to bring a friend!)

67374571

• - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 184(2) – a parent permitting child to ride a bicycle without a helmet on July 23, 2013 in Penticton B.C.
  – pretrial conference scheduled for June 23, 2014 in the Penticton Law Courts.

79458868

• - Motor Vehicle Act, s. 184(1) - cycling without a helmet on Aug. 27, 2013 in Penticton B.C.
  - pretrial conference scheduled for June 23, 2014 in the Penticton Law Courts.

7435127

• – Motor Vehicle Act, s. 184(1) - cycling without a helmet on Aug. 26, 2013 in Penticton B.C.
  - application hearing of uncertain subject, Aug. 14, 2014 in the Penticton Law Courts.

73474472

• – Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(1) – driving without a licence on Oct. 24, 2013 in Penticton B.C.
  - application hearing of uncertain subject, Aug. 15, 2014 in the Penticton Law Courts.

Dave has a busy summer ahead! Though it seems the "travellin' man" has been reduced to non-motorized transportation.

Oh - and I had no idea Dave had a kid - congratulations, Mr. Lindsay!

SMS Möwe

[rumpelstilzchen]

I had no idea there were laws in Canada regarding cycling helmets. There are no such laws here in England and Wales. You learn something new every day.

[Jeffrey]

I had no idea there were laws in Canada regarding cycling helmets. There are no such laws here in England and Wales. You learn something new every day.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-5 ... w-59-to-71

Oh dear

[Burnaby49]

I had no idea there were laws in Canada regarding cycling helmets. There are no such laws here in England and Wales. You learn something new every day.

Motor (and other vehicle) regulations are a provincial responsibility so the law that Lindsay is charged under is imposed by the Province of British Columbia. I have no idea if other provinces have similar rules. Helmet rules apply to bicycles, motrorbikes, and any other on-road conveyance. I don't know if it applies to skateboarders.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The Highway Code is not law. Is there law re cycling helmets in the UK? I am not aware of any.
(I must admit I have not been on a bicycle in over forty five years.)
ETA:
The Highway Code says "you should wear...." it does not say "you must wear...."
I think (IIRC) that if it is law the Highway Code will use the words "must or must not".

Further edit:
It looks as though I was right:

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’

https://www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction

Not everything in the Highway Code is a legal requirement.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Just for completeness for the non-UK readers, the Highway Code can be used as guidance as to good practice and used against bad drivers under general motoring offences like "driving without due care and attention".

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

It’s a lovely maritime Canada Day and so what could be more fitting than turning our minds once more to a truly Great Canadian. In other words it’s time once again for …

32 Quatloos Vignettes About David-Kevin: Lindsay

Vignette #7 – Dave and the Queen! Dirty Oaths...

David-Kevin: Lindsay is the first individual to have advanced an argument in Canadian courts that some defect in the Queen’s Coronation Oath sabotages all government authority. He argued this concept in a series of British Columbia cases where he challenged his liability to pay income tax.

One question I have long had is whether this argument is an original invention of Lindsay or instead is derived from the UK R. v. JAH case (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9476) with its allegedly counterfeit Stone of Scone. Lindsay’s version of the Coronation Oath argument is discussed in a number of British Columbia cases, so we’ll start there.

The first appearance of the Coronation Oath argument is in R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCSC 188 (http://canlii.ca/t/1mkjk) where Lindsay explains it this way:

[11] The learned trial judge thereafter carried on to deal with the accused's argument that the court did not have jurisdiction over him on the basis of the oath that Her Majesty the Queen took upon her coronation and the oath that the trial judge took upon his appointment.

…

[26] The issue to which the trial judge's evidence is material, according to Mr. Lindsay, is that of jurisdiction. In an affidavit he filed before the learned trial judge he expressed his argument on that point in the following terms at paragraph 28:

I do verily believe the Bible, and specifically the King James Bible, is the Supreme Law which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Defender of the Faith is required to defend. As those people appointed to the position of judges are required by law to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty and thus uphold those Biblical principles, inclusive of not respecting persons and not recognizing any issues that purport to support usury, directly or indirectly, no judge…can compel my appearance to the charges…

This seems to be a simpler approach: that since the Queen swore to defend the faith she is bound by the Bible and its instructions. That flows downstream to judges. Very much a “minister” Belanger argument.

A much more extensive explanation and review of Lindsay’s argument is found in R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203 (http://canlii.ca/t/20phq). Since this is the most detailed version of the argument I will reproduce this in full:

[15] Mr. Lindsay also argues that the Crown is estopped from prosecuting him because the Queen, and presumably Kings before her, is in breach of the Coronation Oath by giving Royal Assent to the Income Tax Act. Members of Parliament, who took an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, could not pass the Income Tax Act and Judges, who swear an Oath of Allegiance, cannot enforce said Act. Judges who do so, it is argued, are guilty of treason.

[16] Summarized, the argument is this:

• 1. The Queen, as is constitutionally required, swore the Coronation Oath upon her accession to the throne in 1953.
  
  2. Pursuant to the Oath, the Queen is obligated to certain duties, obligations and responsibilities to herself and all other men of the Realm.
  
  3. The relationship between the Queen and all other men of the Realm is contractual; there are reciprocating rights, duties and obligations.
  
  4. The Queen has, by attempting to force him to be a person against his free will, violated the terms of the contract and is guilty of fraud by representing the Income Tax Act as being mandatory upon him as a free will, full liability flesh and blood living man created by God. The Act is not mandatory upon him and is an attempt to steal from him his property without his consent, for the Queen’s benefit.
  
  5. The Queen has, by giving Royal Ascent to the Income Tax Act and related legislation such as the Bank Act, violated her oath to maintain the principles of the Christian religion including, inter alia, the abolition of usury, the ten commandments, including thou shalt not steal, as well as violating her constitutional obligation to protect his property and not take it from him without his consent.

(See paragraphs 382, 391, 430 and 431 of Mr. Lindsay’s Brief.)

[17] Mr. Lindsay argues that the Queen cannot represent to him that she will protect his property, maintain the principles of the Christian religion (including no usury) and require him to file Income Tax Returns and perhaps to pay income taxes. The Queen, he says, cannot fail to uphold her contractual and constitutional duties and obligations to him and base the prosecution upon the fact that he has allegedly failed to do certain things that he is under no obligation at law to do. The Queen could not give Royal Assent to the Income Tax Act, which supports usury financing to pay interest on government loans. The Coronation Oath is binding upon the Queen and she cannot prosecute when she has not complied with her Oath. Thus, I as a Judge who has sworn an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, have no jurisdiction to enforce the Income Tax Act. (Paragraphs 441 and 633 of Mr. Lindsay’s Brief.)

[18] Basically, I dealt with that argument in my Reasons for Judgment dated October 14, 2005 herein. There, I held that the Coronation Oath, in part, requires the Queen to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom and of its dominions, possessions and territories according to their respective laws and customs. The Income Tax Act is law in Canada, and has been held on many occasions to be valid legislation and, thus, the Queen, is duty bound to govern Canada according to its laws, the Income Tax Act being one of those laws.

[19] In the Coronation Oath, the Queen agreed to maintain the law of God and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Church of England as established by law. The Income Tax Act is obviously man made law and, as I stated, separation of Church and State, while allowing one to have his or her religious beliefs, requires that man made law be obeyed. As I said, conflict between the laws of God and the laws of man, I assume, are resolved in the after life.

[20] In paragraph 20 of my Reasons aforesaid, I said this:

That the King or Queen must govern his or her subjects according to law, if not obvious, is made so by the excerpt from Blackstone.

Among other things:

The principle duty of the King is to govern his people according to law.

The King ought not be subject to man but to God, and to the law; for the law makes the King.

The King of England must rule his people according to the degrees of the laws thereof; insomuch that he is bound on oath at his coronation to the observance and keeping of his own laws.

[21] I concluded by saying that the Queen must observe and keep the laws of the Dominion of Canada. Just as the Queen must observe the law, so must the citizens. The will and pleasure of individuals cannot be above the law.

[22] Mr. Lindsay goes on to argue that if the Queen reneges upon her Coronation Oath, the people are at liberty to revoke their allegiance to her. Mr. Lindsay has done this, he says, because the Queen is guilty of fundamental breach of her contract to uphold the laws of God (no usury, no theft, etc.) and that gave him the right to repudiate the contract, i.e., to opt out of the Income Tax Act.

[23] Again, I find this argument to be without merit. The Honourable Judge Klinger dealt with a similar submission in Regina v Crischuk, Kelowna Registry No. 61735, June 15, 2007. Judge Klinger has this to say at paragraphs 11 and 12:

[11] The main defence advanced by the accused is that he refused to file the Income Tax returns as required pursuant to the requirements within the timeframe authorized because to do so would conflict with his religious beliefs. The accused asserts as a proposition that the Queen is constitutionally, contractually, morally and ethically bound to uphold the Christian principles set out in the Bible. He argues that statutes which advance the faith are binding but if statues derogate or diminish the faith they are not binding. He suggests that the Income Tax Act derogates the faith and the principles of the Holy Bible and his religious beliefs and is therefore of no force and effect. He furthermore asserts that where there is a conflict between a statute and the fundamental principles of the Christian religion, the former must give way to the latter. He argues that the taxation system embodied in the Income Tax Act supports usury, which is contrary to fundamental biblical principles and specifically is contrary to his religious convictions and beliefs. Therefore, he argues, he is under no obligation to participate in the taxation system, which would include the filing of tax returns. He also makes the surprising argument that taxation, biblically, of necessity and pursuant to the rule of law, must be voluntary. He suggests that forced taxation is theft. Interestingly, in the accused’s volume entitled “Under Protest, Duress and Intimidation - Challenge to Jurisdiction”, filed in the Registry April 5, 2007, at page 6, para. 28, it is stated that Mr. Crischuk does pay sales and gas taxes, however, this is only because of the extreme difficulty present in refusing to pay them. It would appear therefore that that extreme difficulty trumps his religious conviction. I conclude that if it were extremely difficult for Mr. Crischuk to refuse to pay income tax, he would also then pay income tax notwithstanding his religious convictions.

[12] I find myself in agreement with the Crown’s submission that even if one assumes that Mr. Crischuk is sincere in respect of the religious beliefs that he has espoused, his mistaken belief that the Income Tax Act is not applicable to his conduct is a mistake of law. In R. v. Klundert, 2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), (2004) 187 C.C.C. (3d) 417, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a mistaken belief that a statute is invalid or otherwise not applicable to the accused’s conduct is a mistake of law.

[24] Of course, a mistake of law does not provide an accused person a defence.

[25] I remind myself that I told Mr. Lindsay on an earlier occasion that I would not blindly follow precedent, but would do what I concluded was right. I find myself in agreement with the Honourable Judge Klinger. Thus, if Mr. Lindsay is a “person” as defined by s. 248 of the Income Tax Act, his belief that the Income Tax Act does not apply to him, or if it did at one time that he can opt out, is not tenable.

Just to be clear, the Crischuk case is subsequent to Lindsay first using the Coronation Oath argument - I'm pretty sure the two were in communication at this point. Kazimierz Chester Crischuk is pretty entertaining in his own right - he made up a fictitious aboriginal identity to avoid tax (R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716) (http://canlii.ca/t/29w67)

The affiant, known as: Mythlim‑Axkw of the Wilps‑Daaxan, is a Sovereign North‑American‑Indian (sic.), given the spiritual appellation of the Mythlim‑Axkw by the Tribal‑Family (Exhibit A), and hereby reserves all rights and claims…as it relates to all parties.

But I digress.

Naturally Dave didn’t take that judicial response sitting down – after this decision issued he wrote a letter to Judge Sinclair arguing he was wrong. This is documented in an “Addendum” to the primary decision:

[3] In his letter, Mr. Lindsay continues:

Second is the B.C.G.E.U. case, para. 24. I bring your attention to the fact that the SCC states:

Let us look first to the preamble to the Charter. It reads:

• Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

So we see that the rule of law is the very foundation of the Charter …

As the rule of law is the foundation of the Constitution, so too is the supremacy of God, (or correctly identified as YHSVH) which predates any such written Constitution and is in agreement with my position that you are obligated to uphold the principles of YHSVH (God’s) word given to us in the Bible, pursuant to your Oath of Allegiance which required you to uphold the provisions of the Coronation Oath of Her Majesty the Queen. One cannot separate the two founding principles of our law anymore than one can swear a partial oath; indeed the supremacy of YHSVH (God) is stated first over and above the rule of law.

I remind you, Sir, without prejudice to my primary position of Law herein, that the issue of the Governor General is still live before you though it is expected this will become moot once you upheld YHSVH (God’s) laws, the Coronation Oath of Her Majesty, and the fact that I am not a person as defined pursuant to s. 248 of the ITA nor the person charged, and the rule of law herein as I have outlined to you.

In conclusion, I simply remind you of my position I stated to you during open court and before you that any ruling whereby you dismiss my position, is inter alia contrary to your Oath of Allegiance and amounts to treason and you thereby not being in the execution of your duty, are liable for so doing.

[4] As I attempted to say in Paras. 19-22 of my Reasons, and as I clarify now, both the Coronation Oath and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are framed in the conjunctive, not the disjunctive. Both recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law (my emphasis). The Income Tax Act is part of the law of Canada and must be obeyed.

Dave, of course, appeals, and appeals. In both cases the Coronation Oath argument is rejected as simply not being one for the courts:

R. v. Lindsay, 2010 BCSC 831 (http://canlii.ca/t/2b6nc)

[50] Mr. Lindsay makes several arguments concerning the coronation oath sworn by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on June 2, 1953. Judge Sinclair summarized in some detail the arguments Mr. Lindsay makes in this regard at paras. 15 to 25 of his decision. He previously had considered and rejected similar submissions in his ruling of October 14, 2005. In summary, Mr. Lindsay argues to the effect that there was a defect in the coronation oath, or that Her Majesty has not complied with the oath, resulting in a lack of constitutional authority in the Parliament of Canada in relation to the enactment and enforcement of the Act, or rendering the Act unenforceable. In fact the argument goes further: Her Majesty’s judges and courts lack constitutional authority to enforce laws such as the Act which in the submission of Mr. Lindsay, conflict with the coronation oath.

[51] In Kennedy Justice Sedgwick held at para. 23 that the Act is valid legislation, duly enacted by the Parliament of Canada, enforceable in accordance with its terms. It is settled law that the Act is intra vires the federal government: R. v. Bruno 2001 BCSC 1828 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 1828; Bruno v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, 2002 BCCA 47 (CanLII), 2002 BCCA 47. The Act is applied daily in the courts of Canada and has been accepted as valid legislation for many decades. In Jarvis, the Supreme Court of Canada noted at para. 47: “The [Income Tax Act] legislative scheme has received ample attention from this Court.” I conclude, as did Judge Sinclair, that the Act is valid legislation, duly enacted by the Parliament of Canada. This conclusion is sufficient to dispose of Mr. Lindsay’s arguments concerning the coronation oath of the Queen and the validity of the legislation in question.

[52] Moreover, if there are issues relating to the Coronation oath taken by the Queen, and I don’t concede that there are or could be any such issues, they are in my view non-justiciable.

[53] In O'Donohue v. Canada, [2003] O.J. No. 2764 (Ont. S.C.J.) Justice Rouleau held that issues relating to the succession of the monarchy are not justiciable. The decision was affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal for the reasons given by Justice Rouleau: O'Donohue v. Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 965 (C.A.).

[54] Justice Rouleau stated at para. 13:

13 As stated by Dickson C.J.C. in Canada (Auditor General) v. (Canada Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), 1989 CanLII 73 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49 at 90-91, the determination of whether a matter is justiciable "is, first and foremost, a normative enquiry into the appropriateness as a matter of constitutional judicial policy of the courts deciding a given issue or, instead, deferring to other decision-making institutions of the polity." Dickson C.J.C. recognized that "there is an array of issues which calls for the exercise of judicial judgment on whether the questions are properly cognizable by the courts. Ultimately, such judgment depends on the appreciation by the judiciary of its own position in the constitutional scheme."

[55] If accepted, Mr. Lindsay’s arguments would call into question the legitimacy and authority of Canada’s constitution and government including its courts. I could be without authority to make the very decisions sought by Mr. Lindsay on this appeal. As noted by Judge Sinclair at para. 34 in his ruling of October 14, 2005, anarchy would prevail. O’Donohue points out that Canada shares the monarch with other countries; legal symmetry with them must be maintained. Quite apart from there being no merit to Mr. Lindsay’s arguments in this respect, the issues he seeks to raise are non-justiciable on the basis of the principles enunciated by Dickson C.J.C. in the above-noted passage.

R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (http://canlii.ca/t/2g1sx)

[28] In Mr. Lindsay’s submission, the Coronation Oath sworn by Her Majesty the Queen forms part of the Constitution Act, and is properly enforceable by him by virtue of its status as constitutional law and as a “contractual promise” between the Queen and her subjects. Mr. Lindsay’s submission is difficult to follow but, as I understand it, he contends that the relationship of the Queen to all others in the Realm (including Canada) is contractual; that the Queen breached the contract and was guilty of fraud by misrepresenting the Income Tax Act as mandatory upon him; that taxation is an attempt to steal his constitutionally-protected property from him; and that, by giving Royal Assent to the statute, the Queen violated her oath to maintain the principles of the Christian religion, which include the abolition of usury and the Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Steal”. He submits, as well, that the oath sworn by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II was defective as not in accordance with the Coronation Oath agreed upon and enacted in An Act For Establishing the Coronation Oath 1689 and affirmed in the Act of Settlement 1701, both of which were duly passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent. As I understand it, the effects of the defective oath are first that the succession of Queen Elizabeth II was invalid and she never obtained the power to give Royal Assent to legislation and second that there has been since her coronation no lawfully-appointed Governor General, no lawfully-convened Parliament, and no lawfully-appointed judiciary. Thus, all Canadian legislation ostensibly enacted since her coronation, including the Income Tax Act, is void for want of a valid consent of the Crown. (Mr. Lindsay makes the same submissions about the Coronation Oath sworn in 1937 by King George VI, but that is of no direct relevance to this case.)

…

[31] Mr. Lindsay submits Verhoeven J. erred in relying on Kennedy, Bruno, and Jarvis because his arguments were not considered in those cases. He contends the oath sworn in 1953 by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II bound her constitutionally and contractually to uphold and enforce the laws of God as they are set out in the King James Version of the Holy Bible, which are the supreme source of law as opposed to Parliament, the Crown, and the rule of law itself. He submits, as well, that by virtue of the judges’ oath of allegiance to the Queen, the judges too are bound to enforce Biblical principles. He says further that Verhoeven J. erred in finding the issues arising out of her Coronation Oath to be non-justiciable. In his submission, the Coronation Oath is a contract and Verhoeven J. erred in failing to recognize and act on his private right to rely on the Queen’s promises. As an adjunct of this submission, he argues that the Crown is estopped from prosecuting him for offences that are contrary to the contract. Further, he argues compulsory taxation amounts to theft of his property contrary to his constitutional right to property and as such is “a breach of contract and of no force and effect”. As well, he contends, taxation amounts to “extortion, slavery, trespass and other violations of God’s laws” and that he has chosen not to be bound by secular legislation, as is his right as “a free will full liability, flesh and blood living man created by God”. This summary, I think, captures the gist of Mr. Lindsay’s position.

[32] Mr. Lindsay’s points are so numerous and perplexing that to attempt to answer every point he makes would be to descend into judicial quicksand. Suffice it to say on a broader level that I think there is no possibility that Mr. Lindsay could persuade this Court that the laws of God as he understands them supersede the laws enacted by Parliament to govern the citizens of this country. …

So from these passages we can see that the Lindsay version of the Coronation Oath argument is clearly quite different from that advanced in R. v. JAH. The latter focuses on the Phony Scone Stone and Queen Elizabeth II’s failure to exterminate homosexuals and witches, while Lindsay's concern is a more discrete issue: is taxation stealing according to the Bible and/or contrary to the Biblical prohibition on usury because taxes pay for government debt?

Lindsay’s litigation also precedes the 2011 R. v. JAH trial by many years.

I think it’s safe to conclude that Lindsay’s approach to the Coronation Oath is original and unrelated to the UK variation.

Notably, Lindsay’s argument is very closely related to the concepts advanced by “minister” Belanger of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, which may explain why Belanger has so little good to say about Lindsay – Lindsay’s case law severely undermines Belanger’s position.

Interestingly, Lindsay has not abandoned his Coronation Oath argument, as indicated in this letter he sent to supporters after he was released in 2013 from jail for tax evasion (http://private-person.com/blog/2013/01/ ... e-at-last/):

January 9, 2013

Hi everyone. Happy New Year!

Fortunately, I have now been released from jail in relation to the charge and unlawful conviction of failing to comply with a court order to file income tax returns. To begin, I am really grateful for all the cards and letters of support I received while spending about 5 1/2 weeks in the Kamloops jail. Especially while spending Christmas in the slammer, this support was much appreciated and inspiring. Communications were restricted to expensive calls out only so receiving this type of communications from others really meant a lot to me. The jail guards appeared to get a great laugh when reading one card that was titled: “David Kevin Lindsay, Political Prisoner” – but the message was clear! Even after discussing with them the real reasons for my incarceration, they really didn’t seem to understand the situation, as opposed to understanding but simply not caring. The only thing that the jail staff did not understand, is how I could be incarcerated on such a simple and stupid charge – again, not understanding the politics underlying my case. All guards at all levels believed that I must have done something to anger the judge because they never have inmates on these types of charges. Further evidence of underlying politics at hand.

Judge De Walle sentenced me to 60 days on November 29, 2012, for refusing to comply with Judge Sinclair’s court order to file income tax returns by June 30, 2009. This sentence was already decided prior to my arrival at court, as witnessed by 3 Sheriffs wearing black gloves already in court before De Walle or myself had even entered the courtroom. The only time Sheriffs wear gloves here is when someone is being searched and/or jailed. Normal procedure is for only 1 Sheriff to be in any court at any given time. So clearly they were tipped off by De Walle that he had already made up his mind, before even hearing my position on sentencing. So much for a fair and impartial hearing, oui?

There was definitely a positive outcome to all of this however. Upon being released this week, I stopped at the Kelowna Courthouse to see the file in this case. I managed to get De Walle to order the Transcripts be produced for me at no cost for the entire sentencing hearing and judgement so I obtained a copy of this as well as the sentencing order. In every case of failing to file tax returns that I have seen and read, the Crown always obtains an Order of the Court forcing the defendant to file tax returns. This was the original Order of Sinclair J. in 2009, which founded this charge. However, I realized immediately while still in court and upon being sentenced to jail, that De Walle never issued any court Order to file these returns again!! Thus, this case is now over, and the Crown cannot lay any more charges! Meanwhile, I still have not filed for the years in question, 1997-2001 (5 years) and now there is no court Order either compelling me to so do. So, even if I lose on the appeal, this case is now over and CRA will never get these returns! This is a huge step forward and I believe further shows that with enough determination and diligence, eventually the Crown and Court will simply give up.

It is my belief that this was done on purpose. Why? Because to date, the Courts, and all of them, have continually refused to address my position that the Constitution of Canada includes the Coronation Oath of the Queen, which in turn includes her promises to the “utmost” of her ability, to maintain the principles of the Christian religion, and the ITA is wholly contrary to many of God’s laws and principles, including, of paramountcy, the unlawfulness of usury or interest, and the destruction of our property rights. There is simply no way out of this for the Court and so they have continually tried to ignore it. But I believe that they have now realized that, again, if the court issued another Order to file, I would be back with the same position and that they cannot ignore it forever. The courts don’t want to rule in my favour as it would destroy the fraudulent usury monetary system and supporting taxes – along with 200 000 useless but well paying jobs, including in the courts. So De Walle is hoping that they don’t see me back in court anymore – to say nothing of the length of time it continually takes them to hear every case because of my knowledge of court rules, procedures and our law. (and yes, no liars/lawyers!). The solution? Do not issue any more Orders to file and hope he goes away. But I am not going anywhere.
Same on the issue of being a ‘person’. My case was the first and most comprehensive case ever put to the courts on defining what a ‘person’ is at law, how one becomes a ‘person’, and how one can lawfully choose not to be a ‘person’ and thus not subject to the ITA. Again, their only reply, was to ignore all my (indeed, their own!) authorities and legal precedents going back 1000 years! This too, is going to come up again in the future.

I am still appealing the conviction on this issue, already filed and to be heard later this year. I have plans to raise the Oath and Christian foundation of our Constitution in another manner as well later this year and I will strive diligently to make sure that at some time, it will get heard and ruled upon in our favour.

So this truly can be seen as a ‘victory’ of sorts, and surely a major step forward! When the Courts reach the point that they don’t and/or can’t deal with an issue, such as the supremacy of God’s laws in our Constitution, there is something there that is damaging to their power structure, and supporting of our fundamental power over them.

Now that I have been released, I am spending the next couple of weeks catching up on a few matters to help some friends (and house cleaning!) and will begin work again on the second and final part to our Person Solution Tour, where we will be advocating a true activist solution to change the present UMS (usury monetary system). I will also begin my appeal on the conviction and this should be heard in the summer at some point.

On a further positive note, I was also successful in having 37 CRA failing to file tax returns quashed in a recent decision, as a result of an application I made for delay attributable to the Crown. The judge agreed with me and threw out all the charges, despite the CRA alleging (unsupported of course) millions of dollars in taxes owing for these years! The judge further commented that my argument exceeded the standard of professionalism that a court expects from counsel and also noted that I was successful in obtaining significant amounts of internal CRA disclosure documents that they initially refused to release. I hope to use these comments as a basis to help others in the future, especially here in B.C. The more people that refuse to support this criminal banking and tax system in place, the quicker we become closer to freedom. I believe that things are shifting in our favour!

As with others who are on the front lines in our stand for freedom issues, especially where we have been incarcerated for any period of time, we critically need your help and assistance for us to continue.

I am most certainly not the only man on the front lines in need of assistance, but for those of us who put our freedom on the line, we truly do count upon and need your support if we are to continue to risk our freedoms and invest in our future. Bills continue to climb unfortunately as they did during my stay in jail, and I would be greatly appreciative of any financial assistance you could provide. I wish to thank you sincerely for any assistance you can send. Donations can be sent to 2929 Coleman St., Penticton, British Columbia, V2A 7C9. As I don’t have a bank account, a money order or cheque with the ‘pay to’ line blank, or money itself, would be best.

I will also now begin to check my previous emails and the long task of getting caught up on these as well. Thanks for all your patience. I look forward in the next week of contacting my supporters and moving forward.

in freedom I remain,

David-Kevin: Lindsay

The man does not know the meaning of the word “surrender”.

Nevertheless, the January letter does appear to contain a little fib - Dave did not have any live appeals at this point according to the B.C. Courts Online service. His last appeal, R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99, had leave to appeal denied by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 6, 2011. There is no evidence of any subsequent appeals.

Nevertheless, in awe I remain,

SMS Möwe

[LordEd]

The man does not know the meaning of the word “surrender”

Based on the summary, there are many words he doesn't know.

[Arthur Rubin]

YHSVH? I've heard of Jehovah (JHVH). Where does the "S" come from.

[AndyK]

It's an attempt to construct a sophisticated subsitute for "Jesus."

YHSVH is a contortion of variant of Jesus extracted from "Joshua."

How they got there or why they did it, however, remains a mystery.

Probably just another of the mystical, cura-all words which make all the problems go away.

[JamesVincent]

YHSVH? I've heard of Jehovah (JHVH). Where does the "S" come from.

That extra "S" is for salt, we throw that away....

[Bill Lumbergh]

Good news, everyone.

Lindsay has resurfaced on this week's edition of Canada The Nation: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/4937 ... ts/2369455

It's the same old stuff for the most part.. taxes are the root of all evil and without them we would all be happy and there would be no crime or divorce... blah blah coronation oath blah blah...

The one interesting bit is towards the end. Lindsay is apparently working to establish "freeman valley" type communities. The idea is to have freemen descend upon small Canadian towns at which point they will stop paying taxes, remove licence plates, etc. Because these towns are small, they will not have the resources to cope with such a tidal wave of freedom.

That's the plan, anyway. In the meantime there is another webinar in the works.

[Burnaby49]

Good news, everyone.

Lindsay has resurfaced on this week's edition of Canada The Nation: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/4937 ... ts/2369455

It's the same old stuff for the most part.. taxes are the root of all evil and without them we would all be happy and there would be no crime or divorce... blah blah coronation oath blah blah...

The one interesting bit is towards the end. Lindsay is apparently working to establish "freeman valley" type communities. The idea is to have freemen descend upon small Canadian towns at which point they will stop paying taxes, remove licence plates, etc. Because these towns are small, they will not have the resources to cope with such a tidal wave of freedom.

That's the plan, anyway. In the meantime there is another webinar in the works.

That idea didn't work very well for the Bhagwan when his followers tried to take over Antelope, Oregon. And they were a cohesive focused group with lots of money.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_(Bhag ... _Rajneesh)

[fortinbras]

This has been tried in the US by white separatists and others, and came to nothing because the newcomers discovered that overwhelming a small town meant they were now living in a small town - without countless amenities that they had been accustomed to, like as not with a climate and seasonal changes that played a part in keeping the population small, and if they chased out some or most of the original residents then they lost a lot of useful stores and craftsmen which made things even worse. There were no biker bars, tattoo artists, or decent schools, nor even a Starbucks or a Burger King. Bankers and the like had gotten wind of what sort of people the new residents were, and money for mortgages and new enterprises became very scarce. Within a very very few years many of those newcomers bailed.

[notorial dissent]

I really have no problem if they all want to congregate somewhere and be "free", but they are going to have to do it on their own dime, and that I think is the major problem. Most of them can't afford the refrigerator cartons they are living in or to move out of their parent's basements/attics, so finding someplace to infest is going to be a hard nye on to impossible task. Not even considering that they would have to actually work to make it last. I'm sure there must be any number of abandoned towns in the hinterlands they could go reclaim, but then we're back to the whole work thing and no Starbucks and wifi thing.

[Fmotlgroupie]

I think the most obvious Freeman invasion is the Free Keane movement in Keane, NH. I don't know if it was originally conceived as a libertarian rather than Sovrun movement, but yhey're very much of the "the laws don't exist if we don't like them, so we're going to make asses of ourselves in court and post it on Youtube" school.

As you say, there's a surprising number of ghost towns out there (for example http://globalnews.ca/news/1513118/ghost ... -for-sale/ ). If Freemen had initiative, common sense, group skills, and a few bucks, they could genuinely live the dream; it's a pity that our Northern Alberta squatters didn't find a legal way to do their thing instead of getting kicked out by wildlife officers.

[notorial dissent]

I can't remember now whether it was Vermont or NH that the sovrunidjit contingent was talking about inhabiting and turning into an idiots paradise now, but it was a big thing a couple of years ago to get them to all move up there and take over the state and then force it to go back to good old common law, etc, blah, blah, blah. As far as I could tell, the best they managed was to get a few of their idjits on the local boards to make complete and utter fools of themselves, and that didn't last too long from what I could tell. I think it, like the FMOTL fantasies has pretty well faded in the face of harsh reality that no one wants to live in their fool's paradise but them.

[JamesVincent]

As you say, there's a surprising number of ghost towns out there (for example http://globalnews.ca/news/1513118/ghost ... -for-sale/ ). If Freemen had initiative, common sense, group skills, and a few bucks, they could genuinely live the dream; it's a pity that our Northern Alberta squatters didn't find a legal way to do their thing instead of getting kicked out by wildlife officers.

That is indeed the truth. There's been hundreds of towns abandoned for one reason or another during US history, not to mention Canada's. In this area you could find a bunch that were abandoned when coal mines played out, out West you could find ones that played out when gold or silver mines played out, anywhere near a major river after flooding. There's several whole small cities in West Virginia that were abandoned when the coal company closed down. When my uncle bought his mountain it had the remains of a small town on it, now it's down to 3 houses and his cabin, the remains of an old trapping community. Another uncle's property out in Missouri has a whole ghost town on it, around 30 buildings IIRC. Plenty of places to look for and purchase if you were so inclined.

That said I think the biggest issue is what's already been stated, they violate the seven Ps and will always fail. And not all small towns would just roll over and let them do what they want.