David-Kevin: Lindsay: The Unlicensed Man

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

So, David-Kevin: Lindsay. Where to start.

I think a part of my fascination with David-Kevin: Lindsay is that for so very long he was a cipher. I’d never seen a photograph – and I looked high and low. No video appearances – anywhere.

He didn’t even operate a website. Well, that’s not entirely true. One of his email addresses hinted he owned the http://clearfreedom.org/ website – but that page sternly locks out those who do not have appropriate ID. And there's this remnant of a decade-plus old page from when Dave lived in Alberta (http://cyberclass.net/dave/davelindsay.htm). (A short stay, it seemed.)

Instead, I learned about Lindsay from his litigation footprint – a Godzilla-like stamp across the Canadian OPCA world. While he has appeared in many jurisdictions, he seems to have started his ‘career’ in Manitoba in the 1990s. In the next decade he moved to inland British Columbia, where he remains to this day.

Lindsay, personally, is the subject of eighteen reported judgments. This probably grossly understates his appearances in criminal proceedings because he has, in the British Columbia Provincial Court alone, 36 separate actions where he is a defendant (B.C. Courts Online database). A search of the Manitoba courts database identifies 29 more civil and criminal proceedings.

He has applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal in 2006 (David Lindsay (David-Kevin: Lindsay) v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2006 CanLII 39426 (SCC)), 2007 (David-Kevin: Lindsay v. Attorney General of British Columbia, 2007 CanLII 50072 (SCC)), 2008 (David Kevin Lindsay v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2008 CanLII 46982 (SCC)), and 2011 (David-Kevin: Lindsay v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2011 CanLII 62450 (SCC)), but has been denied every time. On the last application he requested the opportunity to make oral argument (which is quite unusual for a Supreme Court of Canada leave application) – they said they didn’t want to hear from him.

He appears in at least 25 more reported cases as a representative or adviser for someone else.

In Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 Lindsay is profiled as a guru at paras 100-108. That judgment at para 101 reports no less than seven classic OPCA arguments argued by Lindsay in his trials:

• 1. various deficiencies in judicial oaths prohibit court action;
  
  2. the relationship between the state and a person is a contract, and one can opt out of that contract;
  
  3. the obligation to pay income tax is one such agreement;
  
  4. legislation, the common-law, and court principles and procedures are trumped by “God’s Law” and other divinely ordained rules and principles;
  
  5. the Poriskyite natural person argument;
  
  6. that an aspect of the 1931 Statute of Westminster meant all post-1931 government legislation and action is unauthorized; and
  
  7. the Magna Carta has super-constitutional status and restricts state and court action.

He’s been declares a vexatious litigant in British Columbia and Manitoba: para 105. Back in 2002 he was advertising he is an expert at conducting criminal prosecutions of government officials: para 102. Lindsay offers to prepare documents, run trials, and represent like-minded people.

And he has style! The Manitoba Court of Appeal quoted this passage from his court materials in R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 35 (http://canlii.ca/t/1j00q):

The appellant's court filings abound with unfounded and scurrilous accusations of "corruption and criminal activity at all levels of the justice and political levels," "unlawful Gestapo [S]earches," "unlawful court fees for justice" and judges who "wilfully violated a court order" and "participated in the cover up." Even on the first page of his notice of appeal we find this gratuitous and insulting greeting:

I'm Baaaack!!

And you thought I was gone! NOT! I still demand the rule of law be obeyed ‑

If you know how.

The appellant takes issue with words such as "scandalous, vexatious, frivolous, and irrelevant" that the motions judge used in describing portions of his affidavit and brief. That description was clearly invited and justified by the tenor of his material.

All that, and nothing online. No website, no Facebook page, no Twitter feed, no videos. While other gurus self-flagellated themselves bloody, Lindsay didn’t have to do that. He didn’t have to sell himself in such a crass, superficial manner. No, Lindsay remained a shadow, who would now and then pop up – run a seminar series across Canada – then disappear.

And his advertising … oh gods, his advertising …

Go on. I dare you. Look at this 2009 handbill (http://www.mediafire.com/view/auswt9o4d ... ntreal.pdf). Look at it! This would embarrass an eight year old. And that’s merely it’s appearance. The content is … who else but David-Kevin: Lindsay would dare make this proclamation?

Do fonts (ALL CAPS, I, B, other?) differentiate between a man and a “person”?
The judiciary says YES!

Yeah – can you really resist paying the $99 to hear David-Kevin: Lindsay explain that? To hell with birth bonds, A4V, or ‘opting out’. I want to know how I can split myself into two, discrete entities, one with Geneva in bold, vs. italic Times New Roman. That’s the REAL stuff.

In another ad (http://www.galacticfriends.com/componen ... d-999.html), this time posted on the Galactic Friends (!?!) website – “Together Joyfully co-creating a spiritual Galactic Society we can be proud of!!” – in which David promises:

Our seminar is the first in Canada to provide actual judicial documentation confirming that a “person” is not simply a man or woman, and we will take you through this entire analysis in a manner that will leave you with no doubt as to the correctness of our position. Did you know that an English superior court judge (King’s Counsel) has conceded not only that the style of fonts on paper has been used by the justice system to demonstrate the difference between a man and a “person”, but they have been doing so for almost 100 years, without your knowledge or consent!

Here’s another one (http://www.mediafire.com/view/rzci4n4m4 ... nnipeg.pdf). It take balls of titanium to stick this on a lamppost and expect people will pay to see you speak.

And every ad – EVERY ad reminds us that it’s time to spread the truth with a jaunty reminder: “... and don’t forget to bring a friend!”

So who is this mighty litigant? Where did he come from? What has motivated his tireless two-decade long crusade? I didn’t know. And I’ll admit, in my mind, I imagined this giant figure, a ranting beast of angry flesh, wild hair, fiery eyes:

• A man who dared the New Brunswick Court of Appeal deny they are an Admiralty Court and demanded they remove their courtroom yellow fringey flag. (They didn’t: R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd., 2003 NBCA 53 at para. 2 (http://canlii.ca/t/57bx)).
  
  A man who Stood Tall against the Jewish cabalistas who attempted to block David Icke from spreading his truths to Canada. (So what if he failed: Warman v. Icke, 2009 CanLII 43943 (ON SC): http://canlii.ca/t/258td) – those reptiles no doubt control the judiciary too!)
  
  A man who was the first to say what we all know is undeniable – the Queen is a fraud because of her defective coronation oath! (Which even if true doesn’t matter: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 at paras 32 (http://canlii.ca/t/2g1sx)).

So, a few months ago, that epitome of excellent news reporting, “We Are Change Victoria”, posted a video interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k18W8QuhHU8) with The Unlicenced Man. For the first time, I got to see Him, here promoting how property is a constitutionally protected right (it isn’t) and why you don’t have to pay income tax (actually you do.)

And … and … he’s a kind of mousy-looking guy with a receding hairline and a really light, mild voice.

Huh. Well that was … kind of a let-down.

But something neat came up in the interview. Beyond Dave talking about his ideas, his organization, “C.L.E.A.R.” – the “Common Law Education and Rights Initiative”, he also explained his history. And this is what I found most interesting – Lindsay explains he first in the early 1990’s became interested in what are now known as Sovereign/Freeman/OPCA ideas via a blind mass-mailing of a publication, The Michael Journal (http://michaeljournal.org/). This very weird newspaper is from a group of Quebec, hardcore Catholic, “Social Credit” advocates. It still exists, and many back issues can be read online. Social Credit is a wonky Canadian political movement that claimed economic benefit would flow from the government giving people free money, which they would then spend and stimulate the economy. (The rise and fall of Social Credit is a soap opera all itself.) Back in the 1990’s the Michael Journal featured articles on how the monetary system was corrupt, among that publications other more than a little conspiratorial content.

Dave explains that at the time the Michael Journal was being bulk mailed to every Canadian address (but darkly hints that Canada Post didn’t do its job – dangerous knowledge you know!). I remember getting issues of the publication at the time and being quite amused and fascinated by its weirdo contents. Well, Dave liked it too, and he noticed that some of the authors of the anti-usury / don’t have to pay income tax articles were right from his own home town, Winnipeg. So he met these individuals, and was caught up with their amazing ideas. And down the rabbit hole he went! And 23 years later he’s still tunneling…

I’m not clear how many fellow travellers Dave had in Manitoba, but by the time he ended up in British Columbia he was a leader in the growing Detaxer movement. I’ve seen communications from among the people involved in that (some of whom still pop up now and again!) and it was a profoundly different phenomenon from the recent Freeman-on-the-Land wave. The Detaxers were highly organized: they shared their legal schemes, compared research, obtained and circulated transcripts of their litigation, and for a bunch of lay persons they engaged in a meaningful exploration of how they might escape tax obligation. These were kooks, yes – but smart kooks.

And Lindsay was amongst the most determined of them. He personally fought the obligation to pay tax – and sure he failed, over and over – but at least he didn’t let others be the ones to (always) playtest the result of sticking their arms in a meat grinder.

Still, failure and jail took its tole, and by the mid 2000’s the Detaxers either gave up, turned inward in small remnant cells, and instead Robert Menard and the Freemen became the dominant OPCA movement. But Lindsay didn’t stop – he continued his tours, continued going to court, being found guilty, going to jail, and by this time he became, well, something of a 'has been'. Even a joke. You know it’s bad when the skinheads on Stormfront are making fun of you (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t589617/) and sending you Christmas cards (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t929615/).

“minister” Belanger of CERI has even accused David-Kevin: Lindsay of being a CRA agent and “false flag” operative. How else can one explain Dave’s record of hopeless, futile litigation? It must instead be he was assigned to argue certain ideas in court in a manner than guarantees they would fail – and then create the jurisprudence that defeats Freedomites everywhere.

Well, now the time has again apparently come for David-Kevin: Lindsay to re-emerge into the public’s eye – a savior for the leaderless host of Freemen, and a guiding hand for Dean Clifford himself. Frankly, I think that’s fitting – because in a lot of ways if there is anything that the surviving Freemen-on-the-Land need is someone who knows the ropes.

And nobody, nobody in Canada knows the ropes like Dave.

(Even when he pretends they aren’t there.)

Given the raw scope of David-Kevin: Lindsay’s activities that’s where I’ll stop for the moment. My plan is post more focused messages on Lindsay-related subjects when I have the opportunity.

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

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

It seems to me that Lindsay has floated every detax/sov/freeman argument at one time or another.

The courts lost patience with him when he started willy-nilly trying to bring cops (some from Nanaimo, interestingly enough), judges and prosecutors up on criminal charges using his "private criminal charges" method.

Lindsay's accusations were absurd, and everybody knew it. The courts have been pretty clear in pointing out that Lindsay uses this ploy in an attempt to get out from under some sort of legal trouble he's in.

We hear in the latest Clifford update (http://deanclifford.info/2014/05/25/updates-9-10/) that now that he can't play lawyer Lindsay, in effect, wants Team Dean to do his dirty work for him. It's pretty clear Lindsay thinks throwing phony charges at cops and prosecutors holds up the process and makes the authorities "look bad" by having them dragged into court.

Lindsay fails to point out he's never been successful in getting any authorities charged and dragged into court.

It's just another freeman pipe dream.

One doesn't have to be a mind reader to figure out that Dean and Darren are going to charge the cops with assaulting them. That's what the brothers seem to whine about the most!

[Jeffrey]

Yep the latest Clifford update is just Lindsay bamboozling them.

[Fmotlgroupie]

Hilfskreuzer Mowe on Dave Lindsay - I feel like I'm watching Frost vs Nixon in the initial broadcast!

[LordEd]

[Burnaby49]

Mowe should have that turned into a poster for his office wall. However, given his admitted overwhelming fan worship of David-Kevin: Lindsay perhaps this might be a more appropriate pictorial representation of their relationship;

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Ok - ok - I'll post some more.

('cause I certainly have plenty of material!)

A lot of Canadian courts have lately been going through their older case collections and publishing these materials online, chiefly on CanLII. Earlier this weekend when I began digging around for some more Lindsay material I discovered this process has occurred in Manitoba - in particular their Court of Appeal has added partial coverage all the back to 1984, with complete case indexes from 1999 onward.

This, I'm pleased to say, has brought a new period in Dave's Adventures to light.

Lindsay is best known for his claims that income tax is voluntary – he is in many ways the archetypical Detaxer. But it didn’t start out that way. Rather, Dave’s entry into the world of criminal litigation had a more commonplace start. Like many of his peers, David-Kevin: Lindsay was caught driving after imbibing a little booze.

R. v. Lindsay, 1997 CanLII 2985 (MB CA) (http://canlii.ca/t/1flhh) is a brief decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Brief enough that I might as well reproduced it en toto:

The accused appeals from two decisions of the Court of Queen’s Bench following upon his conviction in Provincial Court of refusing a breath sample. His conviction, in the same proceedings, for impaired driving was not recorded pursuant to the principle in Kienapple v. R., 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729.

After his conviction Mr. Lindsay first applied to Smith J. of the Court of Queen’s Bench for an order under sec. 684 of the Criminal Code requiring the Attorney General to pay for the costs of a transcript of the proceedings in Provincial Court. The application was denied on the basis that sec. 684 did not apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench. No appeal has been taken from his order.

Next the accused applied before Steel J. for an order under sec. 9 of The Law Fees Act, C.C.S.M., c. L80, for similar assistance. Steel J. declined to grant the order requested on the ground that there was no likelihood of success on appeal.

Finally, the accused’s summary conviction appeal came on before Krindle J. sitting as an appeal court judge. She dismissed the appeal noting, as had Steel J., that even if the accused was successful in his attack upon the refuse breathalyzer conviction – being the principal if not the sole argument advanced before her - this would simply result in the resurrection of his conviction for impaired driving, respecting which the accused had not presented a persuasive argument.

Doubtless Mr. Lindsay has persevered over a two and a half year period in his efforts to advance his appeal following his convictions in the Provincial Court. However that may be, in the end we find ourselves in complete agreement with the decisions below. There is no merit to the appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.

Unfortunately the Manitoba Court records online don’t allow us to see the original Provincial Court proceedings, but the Manitoba Queen’s Bench hearing data is available (Docket # CR95-01-16153 and CR96-01-17697). Nothing too interesting in those, however.

Dave’s next reported judgment, Manitoba v. Lindsay, 1999 CanLII 14034 (MB CA) (http://canlii.ca/t/1qwht), is fascinating, because it immediately shows us how Dave was and remains so fundamentally different from the run-of-the-mill OPCA guru, let alone litigant. During the first case I reviewed above Dave tried to avoid having to pay $400 for his appeal transcript by an application under s. 9 of The Law Fees Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L80, which read:

9. Where a person has obtained a certificate to take, defend or be a party to a proceeding in forma pauperis in any court of the province, this Act does not apply to or require the payment of a fee by him in respect of any matter, process or service in respect of the proceeding.

Here’s the problem – this mechanism should have been removed when Manitoba updated its rules of court, years earlier. No one had noticed that oversight ... except for David-Kevin: Freakin' Lindsay! Dave found this overlooked provision, and made an application under its authority. The Court of Appeal explains the scenario this way:

5 Proceedings in forma pauperis were at one time regulated by the Queen’s Bench Rules. The most recent version of the relevant rules were to be found in Chapter XXIX of M.R. 115/86. These rules provided that, to proceed in forma pauperis, a person needed a certificate obtained from a committee set up by the Law Society of Manitoba. This practice had in fact been superseded by the Legal Aid scheme in force in the province since the early seventies. Proceedings in forma pauperis were formally abolished when the new Queen’s Bench Rules replaced the old in 1989.

6 Section 9 of The Law Fees Act was obviously overlooked. It remained in force until a date after the commencement of the plaintiff’s present action. Nonetheless, as there was no process for obtaining a certificate, s. 9 was an anachronism; its effect was spent. Legal Aid was by then the means by which a needy person might be financially aided in pursuing court proceedings.

7 Frustrated by his inability to apply to anyone for a certificate in forma pauperis, the plaintiff purported to prepare his own. Not surprisingly, this was rejected.

8 The plaintiff then applied unsuccessfully to the Court of Queen’s Bench for an order waiving the transcript fees. He made a second application to the same effect (with a minor change to the statutes relied on) which came before Steel J. in March 1996. Although the plea for a certificate giving him in forma pauperis status was only referred to incidentally, Steel J. did in fact consider whether or not a certificate for use under s. 9 of The Law Fees Act should be issued. Earlier, in other proceedings, this Court had suggested that such a certificate might be issued by the Queen’s Bench in the absence of a committee appointed by the Law Society of Manitoba: see Stonechild v. Woods et al. reflex, (1983), 76 Man.R. (2d) 300. That, however, was before the Queen’s Bench Rules dealing with the appointment of a certifying committee had been repealed.

9 Nonetheless, Steel J. considered the plaintiff’s entitlement to a certificate and ruled against him on the ground that there was insufficient merit to the proposed appeal.

Subsequently Dave got to the Court of Appeal in 1997 and lost. But where a mere mortal litigant would have simply given up, David-Kevin: Lindsay persists! He then sued the government for damages, claiming he had been ripped off when the state actors didn’t follow their own legislation and permit him to advance the in forma pauperis argument (para 12)!

The plaintiff then commenced this action in which he sought damages (general, punitive, specific and exemplary) for the Government’s refusal to grant him status as a litigant in forma pauperis. Instead of moving to strike out the action as one which did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, as it might well have done, the Government defended by responding to the plaintiff’s assertions of irrelevant facts. Later the Government moved for summary judgment.

And they got it.

But Dave appealed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal – and won! Well, sort of. He might have been right that he had a basis to complain about a failure to exercise authority granted by law with the in forma pauperis application, but he nevertheless should have first gone to Legal Aid first, and then been rejected.

13 I have much sympathy for the Associate Chief Justice who, on the motion for summary judgment, was faced with pleadings which appeared to raise issues of fact which could not be dealt with summarily. Even if, however, these factual issues were all resolved in favour of the plaintiff, he has no underlying cause of action. Thus, for example, whether or not the plaintiff is estopped from raising his entitlement to a certificate in forma pauperis by Steele J.’s order denying him one, he clearly had no right to a waiver of the transcript fees in the absence of a Legal Aid certificate. Absent a right to such a waiver, he cannot claim damages from the Government for refusing to provide the transcripts to him.

14 The plaintiff has done much research and has advanced many arguments which, superficially at least, are attractive. The fact remains that the basis of his claim is the Government’s refusal to recognize an anachronistic practice which was long ago replaced by Legal Aid. The plaintiff’s proper remedy, if it had any, was to appeal the original decision denying him a Legal Aid certificate.

15 In the absence of an underlying cause of action, the plaintiff’s action is hopeless and should be dismissed. In the circumstances, I would allow the appeal, but make no order as to costs.

After that, Lindsay’s third early proceeding at the Manitoba Court of Appeal, R. v. Lindsay, 1999 CanLII 14042 (MB CA) (http://canlii.ca/t/1qwj3), reveals he has now completed his larval states and emerged from his litigation pupa as a full-formed OPCA litigant. Dave was convicted of the classic ‘travelling’ offences: driving while suspended and driving without a licence. (Reviewing Queen’s Bench files indicates he may also have failed to produce motor vehicle registration on demand).

Dave didn’t show at the Provincial Court trial, and was therefore convicted (para. 2). Lindsay then appealed, but didn’t actually indicate what convictions were under appeal (para. 3). The court gave him the benefit of the doubt (para. 3). At Queen’s Bench Dave wanted to enter new evidence that he had not been driving a motor vehicle, but that application was shot down (para. 4). However, that was not the only arrow in the Lindsay quiver, as he also argued this (para 5):

On the issue of constitutionality of those provisions of The Highway Traffic Act which require the payment of fees for a driver’s licence and a vehicle registration, the applicant’s argument was, in my view, curtailed. He wanted to refer to legal authority that went back as far as the Magna Carta. The appeal judge saw no merit whatsoever in the argument being advanced and told the applicant so. Unfortunately, he failed to make it clear that the applicant could complete his argument and the applicant, perceiving that he was being denied the opportunity to do so, asked that the matter be adjourned for hearing before another judge. This request was denied and the appeals dismissed.

Ah, at last … the Magna Carta. Finally Dave is on his One True Path.

So, at the Court of Appeal Dave argued he was right, and in any case had not been given the opportunity to argue his case. Justice Twaddle (!) invoked the audi alteram partum principle – that if Dave was denied a chance to argue his case at Queen’s Bench - his injury was cured if he received the full hearing he deserved at the Court of Appeal (para. 9):

8 On the application for leave to appeal to this Court, the applicant asserts that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing. Assuming this assertion to have merit, I do not think it entitles the applicant to leave. I have now heard everything which the applicant wished to say, and have read and considered his written argument and supporting authorities, and am satisfied that there is no issue of law which ought to engage the attention of this Court.

…

10 … I gave him the opportunity to say anything he wished and invited him to submit written argument with supporting authorities. This he did, and I have spent no inconsiderable amount of time reading what has been submitted and considering the merits of the arguments. In making my decision, I gave no weight at all to the rulings of the appeal judge, but considered only whether there was in law any basis for setting aside the convictions recorded against the applicant. Although I lack the jurisdiction to set aside the convictions, I would have granted leave to appeal to the Court if there had been any merit in the applicant’s position on the substantive issues. He has thus been given a full opportunity to argue his case.

11 On the application to call new evidence, the applicant offered no acceptable explanation for his deliberate absence from his trial. A person cannot be allowed to assert a perception of bias and then offer no evidence to support it. The new evidence he wished to call was evidence that was available at the trial if he had chosen to defend himself. In the absence of an acceptable explanation for his failure to appear at his trial, there is simply no basis for permitting him to call new evidence on appeal. There is thus no issue for argument in this Court.

12 On the constitutional issue, I am satisfied that there is no sustainable argument to be advanced. The right of a provincial legislature to regulate the use of highways in a province, whether by requiring drivers to pay for a licence and vehicle owners to pay for registration or otherwise, is undoubted: see Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan, [1941] S.C.R. 396 (at p. 416) and Ginther v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance reflex, (1988), 66 Sask.R. 109 (C.A.). Indeed, save for the right to charge fees, the applicant concedes the authority to regulate. He has advanced no argument to me which could possibly distinguish the charging of fees from other modes of regulation.

13 Neither Magna Carta nor the Charter of Rights and Freedoms advances the applicant’s position. The right to use the highway is a right which may be regulated by the proper authority. Nothing in the Canadian constitution entitles a citizen to drive on the highway or register a vehicle free of charge. The contrary position is untenable.

…

15 Although the applicant raises a point of law, it is not one which, in my opinion, presents an arguable case of substance that ought to engage the Court. I therefore dismiss the application for leave.

So there you have it - the mighty Detaxer began as a modest, intoxicated, common law Traveller. From such a tiny seed a truly mighty weed has grown.

SMS Möwe

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

[LordEd]

The photo says moved. I messed something up and will have to re-upload another time.

[LightinDarkness]

Mowe, I just so love it when you give us your latest coverage of another OCPA guru. I had been hoping you would cover Lindsay for a while, he comes up routinely in sov'run conference calls although often they are split on whether to worship him or call him a government shill (as you note).

As usual, bravo! I actually made popcorn to read this.

[arayder]

Nice job, Möwe.

It is interesting to note that Lindsay was making the Magna Carta argument in 1999, about the same time Eldon Warman was using the same during his 1999 trial, and subsequent conviction, for assaulting a cop at a traffic stop.

Ah yes, the traffic stop society's lasting impediment to freemanism!

[notorial dissent]

it's always the little stumbling blocks, drinking, driving, writing a coherent sentence....

[Burnaby49]

After reading Mowe's latest post I can see a justification for his star-struck admiration of Lindsay. The man actually has legal research and court skills! Finding a forgotten, superceded, but still on the books statutory provision in some obscure legislation and competently (albeit unsuccessfully) demanding that the court respect it as valid law is vastly above the capabilities of the anti-tax and Freeman dross we have today. All for $400! I was impressed.

None of the litigants in the various court hearings I've attended were even capable of correctly citing statutes never mind actually analyzing them to show their relevance to the issues at trial. If nothing else Lindsay was able to force the courts to address his arguments rather than (as in the cases I've witnessed) striking them for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being vexatious, and an abuse of process.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I think it’s only fair I correct a statement in my first post in this thread. I indicated David-Kevin: Lindsay has on four occasions sought leave to appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada.

That was incorrect. He has, instead, made seven such applications, eight if you count a ‘double application’ in Docket 31204:

• Docket 26150 - David Kevin Lindsay v. Her Majesty the Queen
  Criminal appeal from the Manitoba Court of Appeal – leave denied Oct. 23, 1997
  
  Docket 27181 - David Kevin Lindsay v. Provincial Government of Manitoba, et al.
  Civil appeal from the Manitoba Court of Appeal – leave denied Sept. 9, 1999
  
  Docket 27223 - David Kevin Lindsay v. Her Majesty the Queen
  Criminal appeal from the Manitoba Court of Appeal – late filing application rejected, Basterache J. states: “The material filed indicates the application for leave to appeal has no reasonable chance of success.”
  
  Docket 31204 - David Kevin Lindsay v. Her Majesty the Queen
  Criminal appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal – leave denied Sept. 18, 2008. An earlier 2005 application for leave on the same matter were returned because the Supreme Court of Canada had no jurisdiction to review the matter until Lindsay’s appeal was heard by a panel of three judges at the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
  
  Docket 31465 - David Lindsay (David-Kevin: Lindsay) v. Her Majesty the Queen
  Criminal appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal – leave denied Nov. 23, 2006.
  
  Docket 32026 - David-Kevin: Lindsay v. Attorney General of British Columbia
  Civil appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal – leave denied Nov. 15, 2007.
  
  Docket 34331 - David-Kevin: Lindsay v. Her Majesty the Queen
  Criminal appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal – leave denied Oct. 6, 2011. Application for an oral argument hearing denied.

SMS Möwe

[grixit]

I'm sorry, what was supposed to be here?

[Burnaby49]

I'm sorry, what was supposed to be here?

I was one of the few that saw it. A great poster that LordEd made of Mowe and Lindsay in a boxing ring, Mowe represented by his ship avatar.

[LordEd]

It will return.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

So I did a little research this morning using some more powerful legal research resources and to my awe discovered I have very significantly underreported the scope of David-Kevin: Lindsay’s litigation activities. In under an hour I identified over 30 additional reported cases which either directly involve Lindsay as a party or as a in-court participant for a party. This is above those collected in Meads v. Meads.

Dave, if nothing else, knows the inside a courtroom.

In light of the extraordinary scope of Lindsay’s activities I have decided to post a series of moments or motifs, formatted as a tribute to one of my favorite biographical motion pictures. Thus I start:

32 Quatloos Vignettes About David-Kevin: Lindsay

Vignette #1 – Hearthside

Little has come to light about the day-to-day life of David-Kevin: Lindsay. We know him through his work – he does not share other trivia that might detract from that. Nevertheless, a few glimpses have be captured through that fog into the life of the Unlicensed Man.

A notable example is a document posted on the website WWW.OurCourtsSuck.Com (http://www.ourcourtssuck.com/), “Our Courts are Biased and Corrupt." This website is operated by David Hunter Thomson (sometimes known as “David-Hunter: Thomson”), a resident of Kelowna British Columbia. Mr. Thomson has many complaints about the legal system and its participants, which are generally peripheral to our subject. His website nevertheless presents an interesting reading experience for those who appreciate curmudgeony individuals.

The item of interest is a document entitled “Asseveration”, filed by Mr. Thomson in a Kelowna Court of Queen’s Bench action between Doak Shirreff and David Hunter Thomson, docket # 68725, filed July 22, 2005. Doak Shirreff appears to be a local law firm. The action, which has no associated reported decisions, appears to directly relate to an attempt by Mr. Thomson’s former lawyers to collect on their unpaid fees, but also addresses foreclosure on Mr. Thomson's home for unpaid municipal taxes. It is a many and varied tale.

I quote from it, however, for what we learn about the daily life of David-Kevin: Lindsay:

1. I am indigent and have been since 1996, when I began surviving on a meager rental income supplemented by a social assistance stipend. This stipend was graduated to a “group 1” or temporary disability until January 1999 when I was qualified for a “Group 2” or permanent disability pension. … This disability pension is equal to about half of what is considered to be the poverty level by today’s standards.

2. Aside from the $846.42 provincial pension, I rent the basement of my home to my friend, David-Kevin: Lindsay, also on a Group 2 disability pension. I charge him $400.00 per month, all basic utilities included. David’s living space is possibly worth more than I charge him but as it is, I’m charging him $75.00 more than is designated towards his shelter costs, essential utilities included. I prefer to contribute to easing the low-cost housing situation here in Kelowna, especially when one considers the grossly unrealistic the portion $325.00 of a disability person per month is towards housing, including utilities.

3. The fact is, at $400.00 per month, utilities included, I show a loss in my “rental business”, after deducting the appropriate percentages of loan interest, taxes, insurance, utilities and assorted and related maintenance and repair costs, all legitimate by all standards and accepted accounting rules and guidelines.

4. It is my understanding that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 has been used to uphold the maxim that “a man’s home is his castle”. In my case, my home is also my sanctuary and even my church; I pray regularly to my God, Creator of the Universe, Omnipotent Defender of the Truth, benevolent and compassionate to all God’s Creation.

5. Just as a church is meant to do, my home has been a sanctuary for those with no shelter. Diane Booth, a political refugee from the United States, Kim Morris and Rob Nicholson, who are both unemployed and staying with me, now. My home has been sanctuary for Minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger and even Eddy Haymour when he became homeless in 2002, having also lost his principle source of income, simultaneously when he was evicted from his castle. My home has been sanctuary for Mr. Nicholson’s ritualistically abused children. They, to name just a few, all had no means of support. If we ate, we ate together; if we went hungry then we starved together. There have been many days that we went hungry.

…

8. This issue gravely threatens my already meager sustenance, substantially. I plant a garden, tend my apricots, strawberries and saskatoon berries each year for sustenance. I have canned and frozen my produce to help see me through the winter. I’ve removed the gas furnace and rely on the woodstove, exclusively for heat, a savings of over $ 600.00 per year over gas in heating costs. I even cook on my wood-stove as does my tenant, David Lindsay and virtually every other disadvantaged soul who’s stayed with me, seeking sanctuary. I’ve survived in this fashion since 1996.

I viewed the residence in question, 725 Franklyn Road, Kelowna British Columbia on Google Maps. The satellite view indicates a house and very large garage/workshop, the yard containing six vehicles, some which may not be in operational state. However, the street view reveals this residence to be a stern, almost bunker-like one story structure largely screened behind tall cedars.

My suspicion is that Mr. Thomson may still live there. I come to this conclusion for a number of reasons. First, the building’s street number “382” is clearly incorrect and out of sequence with other properties on this street. The front door of this residence is unwindowed and white, but shows what appears to be massive battering down to its steel core. A large yellow sign with black and red text (too small to read) is positioned on this damaged door. Last, out front of the cedars the Google cameras have recorded a young child sitting beside a woman of uncertain age in a motorized wheelchair. Perhaps this is the latest of the unfortunates who have taken shelter with Mr. Thomson.

So there you have it. David-Kevin: Lindsay is a modern Thoreau. He lives (or lived) a modest, if not austere existence, by a wood-fired stove, consuming the very berries and vegetables he himself grew. There he reads, writes, and thinks about The Law.

And once in awhile he goes out, and shares that with us all. We'd be wise to listen.

To date I am unaware of Lindsay’s disability that has led to him being categorized as a permanent recipient for social assistance.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

32 Quatloos Vignettes About David-Kevin: Lindsay

Vignette #2 – Bringing Out The Best In Us

David-Kevin: Lindsay is a man who speaks what he thinks. It is the challenge that kind of fundamental and honest communication brings which leads to careful, thoughtful responses in return.

An signal example is the response by Judge G. G. Sinclair of the Kelowna British Coumbia Provincial Court, in 2005. His words are reported in this transcript of his oral reasons in response to a challenge to jurisdiction and bias. Lindsay says Sinclair is a judge and will only side with his colleagues. As a government actor, Judge Sinclair is a slave to the tax man.

Judge Sinclair’s response is succinct, eloquent, and deserves reproduction en toto:

[1] THE COURT: One David Kevin Lindsay is charged with five counts of contravening Section 238(1) of the Income Tax Act. Put succinctly, those are counts of failing to provide income tax returns for the years ended December 31, 1997 through December 31, 2001. I am called upon at this stage to make a ruling on but two issues. I shall be brief.

[2] Firstly, it is argued that I, as a Provincial Court of British Columbia judge I do not have jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate upon this matter. Put succinctly, I disagree with that submission. I do have jurisdiction. I refer briefly to Section 785 of the Criminal Code and Section 34(2) of the Interpretation Act. I do not blindly follow the decisions of Judges Stansfield and Brecknell, to name two, that I have jurisdiction, but I follow them because I independently agree with them.

[3] Mr. Lindsay cites many legal maxims and judicial musings or statements. Often they are not cited in the context of the matter at hand. One can apply any number of legal maxims to one's own circumstances or of his or her perception of his or her circumstances. They have to be done in proper context.

[4] I answered one of Mr. Lindsay's questions to the effect that I would not blindly follow precedent but would ultimately do what my conscience told me was right. The right decision here, my conscience tells me, is that I, being a duly appointed and sitting Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia have jurisdiction over these charges.

[5] The Honourable Mr. Justice Wilson, he being the same distinguished jurist who wrote A Book for Judges, which has been cited to me, decided a case in 1954 called Re. Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd. It dealt with whether a trial judge should follow judgments of brother judges. The learned Mr. Justice Wilson basically had this to say:

Where a provincial Court of Appeal, acting in accordance with its right and duty in such a case, overrules a previous decision that is found to be wrong, it settles the law by its overruling opinion. But a trial Judge who differs from another trial Judge of the same Court does not settle but rather unsettles the law.

Hence one trial Judge should not go against the judgment of another unless (1) subsequent decisions have affected the validity of the impugned judgment; or (2) it is demonstrated that some binding authority in case law, or some relevant statute was not considered; or (3) the impugned judgment was not a considered one, as where the exigencies of the trial required an immediate decision without opportunity to consult authority. If none of these conditions exist, a trial Judge should follow the decisions of his brother Judges, leaving it to the Court of Appeal to overrule them if they are wrong.

[6] I do not believe, quite frankly, that the Honourable Judge Stansfield was wrong. I can take notice, I think, and do take notice that the Honourable Judge Stansfield is a very capable judge who gives the most careful consideration to any issue which comes before him. Having considered what he had to say, I independently agree with him. I do not blindly follow him.

[7] The second issue is reasonable apprehension of bias, and I take it that Mr. Lindsay before the court says that I should recuse myself because of that reasonable apprehension. As I understand his argument, because I have acknowledged to him that I do file a tax return each year, that my return has on at least one occasion that I can remember been reassessed, that I am subject to audit and agree that I am and that I retain a tax accountant to prepare and file my return, I am somehow under the influence of or beholden to the Minister of Revenue. He argues that a judge who pays taxes cannot be seen as independent or as not acting in a conflict of interest. Put simply and stripped to its bones, the argument is that if I do not agree with the Revenue Agency or the Federal Crown, they or the Minister can or will cause problems in my life.

[8] That, with respect, is just not so. The only influence the Minister has over me is in my capacity as a citizen of Canada. He or she has absolutely no influence over me in my judicial capacity. That is so with regard to every aspect of my job. The Attorney General, either federal or provincial, the chief of police, the mayor, whoever, cannot tell me how to do my job. He or she cannot phone me or write me about a particular case or an issue in general. I choose to pay taxes, just like I choose not to drive drunk, not to rob banks, not to distribute mind altering drugs and not to assault or kill people, to name a few. I choose not to do the things I have mentioned, because it is morally wrong to endanger other motorists and pedestrians by driving drunk, to take other people's money, to feed the addictions of the less fortunate or to take another life. Does that mean that I cannot hear the case against an alleged drunk driver, thief, drug trafficker or killer? No, it does not. Those people get the benefit of every defence and of every reasonable doubt. If in the end the case has not been proved to my satisfaction, that person, no matter what I may think of him or her, gets acquitted and walks out of court a free person. Does it mean I am going to bend over backwards to convict any such person because I am afraid the chief of police might have his or her officers out looking at what I do or watching me driving, to arrest me or charge me with some real or imagined offence? Am I concerned that the Attorney General is going to make life hell for me because I have acquitted someone in a high profile case that he as the chief law enforcement officer of the province wanted to see convicted? No, because they cannot do that. I am independent.

[9] Mr. Lindsay argues that I must look at things from his perspective, that is, to consider his rights, and I do consider his rights as I consider the rights of every accused person that comes before me. However, I must also consider responsibilities. Far too many people these days come to the table pounding it and stressing their rights while forgetting or putting aside their corresponding responsibilities. Life, I believe, should be approached with a sense of responsibility, not a sense of right.

[10] It is argued lastly that I do not know the law and therefore cannot properly judge this case. Because, Mr. Lindsay says, I do not prepare and file my own tax returns, I probably do not know the Income Tax Act. I find no merit in that argument. I admit that I do not know the Income Tax Act, chapter and verse. I fear that precious few people do. That has little or nothing and I find nothing to do with my ability to interpret a section or sections of the Income Tax Act and to apply it to a set of facts. I find no real likelihood of bias here.

[11] As for a reasonable apprehension of bias, I am satisfied that while Mr. Lindsay says he has an apprehension of bias and testified to the fact that he does, that is his subjective belief. That subjective belief will never change. However, those apprehensions, if they do exist, are by any objective standard not reasonable. On they contrary, they are unreasonable.

[12] I am independent. I can decide the case.

As far as I can tell these reasons have never been cited, which is unfortunate. This is a total answer to a great many complaints of unfair judges and judging.

SMS Möwe

[LordEd]

And... its back. Sorry for the delay.

[grixit]

Judge Sinclair’s response is succinct, eloquent, and deserves reproduction en toto:

[1] THE COURT: One David Kevin Lindsay is charged with five counts of contravening Section 238(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Aha! The judge admits the truth. One David Kevin Lindsay is subject to the law, not both! And which one is it? Obviously, it is that dastardly strawman, not the fleshandbloodlivingbreathingchildofgod man standing on the land.