David-Kevin: Lindsay: The Unlicensed Man

[Burnaby49]

OK Mowe, you win this round, maybe. I watched the “We Are Change Victoria” video. Compared to the Freeman flotsam and jetsam I've been interacting with here in Vancouver Lindsay is, indeed, a giant. He can put forward a lucid coherent legal argument! Incorrect in law perhaps (his court history is somewhat shy of wins) but actually based on the specific application of statutory authority to the argument at issue rather than what I've come to expect from Freemen; a data-dump of all of the statues of Canada and the United Nations without any legal analysis of how they are relevant.

Take income Tax. He hasn't filed a tax return since 1993. But he doesn't do it for the crass obvious self-interest of not wanting to pay tax while hypocritically sucking off the government services paid by the taxes of others. No, it is a selfless fight for freedom! As the man said himself;

Our goal is to show people constitutionally, probably from a perspective most have never even considered, how and why income tax is unconstitutional, and how you can make the determination, legally constitutional, lawfully I should say constitutionally speaking, to not support our government in their criminal activities including the banking industry.

So, as the man said, cowardly cattle like me that pay our taxes are really just aiding and abetting criminal activity on the part of our government representatives.

However I can't really agree with his economic theories. He said that income taxes are unnecessary, we didn't have them here in Canada before 1917 and seemed to do fine without them. Of course a point not emphasized by Lindsay was that government services were somewhat more basic in the early 20th century. You know, no free medical, few roads, no safety nets, that kind of thing. And what event in 1917 triggered the need for more government funding which resulted in income tax in Canada? Anyhow Lindsay stated that the interest on federal government debt equaled the entire amount currently collected in income tax. A dubious statistic I'm not going to google. He said that this indicated we could easily eliminate income taxes entirely and just print more money every year to fund government operations and pay the interest. You know, sort of what like Venezuela is currently doing. I'm sure the massive increase in the money supply to finance the Venezuelan government has no correlation to the 50% to 100% annual inflation that the country is currently facing.

And, as Mowe said in his observations on the Dean Clifford update 10, where Lindsay tried with great patience to hammer some sense into Darren's very limited comprehensive abilities, Lindsay's legal advice was specific and to point. If Dean had relied on Lindsay he would not have filed such a shockingly inadequate Statement of Fact to the Federal Court of Canada. He wouldn't have filed it at all because Lindsay clearly knows which court does what.

Still grinding through the two videos so I may have more observations but one I can give now. Had I attended a David-Kevin: Lindsay court hearing I would have actually had to focus on legal issues rather than just enjoy Freeman antics. I'd have had to do some work, a shocking state of affairs.

[Burnaby49]

OK, I listened a little longer (time to quit, it's past 3AM) and we've moved into Fantasyland. At about the 20 minute point in "Change Victoria" the interviewer asked the obvious question. If we all refuse to pay taxes who pays for the roads, medical services, police? And David-Kevin punts. First, fire all the civil servants, they don't do anything anyhow. Fine, that is a standard disgruntled taxpayer response. But then he gets somewhat strange. He explains why we won't need police services once we stop paying tax;

If you get rid of the usury system, if you eliminate income tax, people will be able to keep their money and people that are happy, keep their money and are happy, and those people don't commit crimes.

So simple, so elegant! But I'm dubious. I think the causes of crime runs a little deeper than resentment and poverty over the collection of income taxes.

Then he talks about how people, freed from the chains of illegal taxation, will be so wealthy they can pay for all of these services themselves. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that the general population has the financial foresight and the prudence to fund "general goods" services like roads and police from their own funds.

However I'm not going to be entirely negative. He does make a good point that I agree with, at least to some extent;

People today are accustomed to thinking that they can look to the government to solve all their problems and we have to get away from that.

So, as Mowe noted, a somewhat crazed life-view but very effective, if, overall, ineffectual, in his legal attacks to force the government to consider his complaints.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

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.

Indeed! It's easy to spot the one true David-Kevin: Lindsay - simply identify the variant with his name in Dingbats underlined bold.

(Yep yep yep, I'm going to mercilessly milk Lindsay's font-base nomenclature scheme for cheap jokes.)

SMS Möwe

[AndyK]

...
However I can't really agree with his economic theories. He said that income taxes are unnecessary, we didn't have them here in Canada before 1917 and seemed to do fine without them. Of course a point not emphasized by Lindsay was that government services were somewhat more basic in the early 20th century. You know, no free medical, few roads, no safety nets, that kind of thing.
...

Also, arouind that time, there was this minor skirmish in Europe. The Canadian troops involved appreciated baing paid and there were a few tnaks, rounds of ammunition, etc, which needed to be purchased.

Oddly enough, the national debt of the United States started to balloon around the same time.

Could there have been some correlation?

[Burnaby49]

...
However I can't really agree with his economic theories. He said that income taxes are unnecessary, we didn't have them here in Canada before 1917 and seemed to do fine without them. Of course a point not emphasized by Lindsay was that government services were somewhat more basic in the early 20th century. You know, no free medical, few roads, no safety nets, that kind of thing.
...

Also, arouind that time, there was this minor skirmish in Europe. The Canadian troops involved appreciated baing paid and there were a few tnaks, rounds of ammunition, etc, which needed to be purchased.

Oddly enough, the national debt of the United States started to balloon around the same time.

Could there have been some correlation?

Actually that is what I meant by this comment;

"And what event in 1917 triggered the need for more government funding which resulted in income tax in Canada?"

To make it even more explicit the Income Tax Act was originally named the Income War Tax Act. you can see a digest of it here;

http://wartimecanada.ca/sites/default/f ... x.1917.pdf

Forty-five pages, simpler days. One thing I find of interest as an ex income tax auditor is that the original Act defined income. That didn't work out well. As soon as it was defined accountant and lawyers started looking for ways for their clients to pay themselves which weren't included in the definition. The original Canadian income tax loophole! The government kept revising the definition to counter this but in the end just gave up and took the definition out; it has remained an undefined term ever since. So, for Canadian income tax assessment purposes, income is like pornography as defined by Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964). You know it when you see it. This is as close as it gets to a definition.

Income for taxation year

3. The income of a taxpayer for a taxation year for the purposes of this Part is the taxpayer’s income for the year determined by the following rules:

(a) determine the total of all amounts each of which is the taxpayer’s income for the year (other than a taxable capital gain from the disposition of a property) from a source inside or outside Canada, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the taxpayer’s income for the year from each office, employment, business and property,

(b) determine the amount, if any, by which

(i) the total of

(A) all of the taxpayer’s taxable capital gains for the year from dispositions of property other than listed personal property, and

(B) the taxpayer’s taxable net gain for the year from dispositions of listed personal property,

exceeds

(ii) the amount, if any, by which the taxpayer’s allowable capital losses for the year from dispositions of property other than listed personal property exceed the taxpayer’s allowable business investment losses for the year,

(c) determine the amount, if any, by which the total determined under paragraph (a) plus the amount determined under paragraph (b) exceeds the total of the deductions permitted by subdivision e in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year (except to the extent that those deductions, if any, have been taken into account in determining the total referred to in paragraph (a), and

(d) determine the amount, if any, by which the amount determined under paragraph (c) exceeds the total of all amounts each of which is the taxpayer’s loss for the year from an office, employment, business or property or the taxpayer’s allowable business investment loss for the year,

and for the purposes of this Part,

(e) where an amount is determined under paragraph (d) for the year in respect of the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s income for the year is the amount so determined, and

(f) in any other case, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have income for the year in an amount equal to zero.

NOTE: Application provisions are not included in the consolidated text;see relevant amending Acts. R.S., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), s. 3;1994, c. 7, Sch. II, s. 1.
Income or loss from a source or from sources in a place

4. (1) For the purposes of this Act,

(a) a taxpayer’s income or loss for a taxation year from an office, employment, business, property or other source, or from sources in a particular place, is the taxpayer’s income or loss, as the case may be, computed in accordance with this Act on the assumption that the taxpayer had during the taxation year no income or loss except from that source or no income or loss except from those sources, as the case may be, and was allowed no deductions in computing the taxpayer’s income for the taxation year except such deductions as may reasonably be regarded as wholly applicable to that source or to those sources, as the case may be, and except such part of any other deductions as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto; and

(b) where the business carried on by a taxpayer or the duties of the office or employment performed by a taxpayer was carried on or were performed, as the case may be, partly in one place and partly in another place, the taxpayer’s income or loss for the taxation year from the business carried on, or the duties performed, by the taxpayer in a particular place is the taxpayer’s income or loss, as the case may be, computed in accordance with this Act on the assumption that the taxpayer had during the taxation year no income or loss except from the part of the business that was carried on in that particular place or no income or loss except from the part of those duties that were performed in that particular place, as the case may be, and was allowed no deductions in computing the taxpayer’s income for the taxation year except such deductions as may reasonably be regarded as wholly applicable to that part of the business or to those duties, as the case may be, and except such part of any other deductions as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto.

[arayder]

I think that before the levying of modern income taxes western democracies just didn't have enough tax money coming in to support the sort of debt loads we see today.

I know the northern states (yankees) were greatly concerned about the funds needed to carry out the civil war and hence implemented the countries first income tax, which was later declared unconstitutional.

[Fussygus]

Forty-five pages, simpler days. One thing I find of interest as an ex income tax auditor is that the original Act defined income. That didn't work out well. As soon as it was defined accountant and lawyers started looking for ways for their clients to pay themselves which weren't included in the definition. The original Canadian income tax loophole! The government kept revising the definition to counter this but in the end just gave up and took the definition out; it has remained an undefined term ever since. So, for Canadian income tax assessment purposes, income is like pornography as defined by Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964). You know it when you see it. This is as close as it gets to a definition.

(Hopefully I entered the quote correctly?) Fixed it. AndyK

Very good point Burnaby about the definition of "income". This was a very significant item in the Porisky camp and it gave much credibility to their position. In essence they equated income to profit and much of discussion was how the definition was removed to ruse people into giving up their "property" (personal labour) which they could not legally take.

Much of the Porisky theory was based on the law being static. That everything was defined to the nth degree and not subject to change. But just as a marriage doesn't stay the same from start to finish (introduce kids, retirement, sickness), neither does society. In a way society has determined what is reasonably the minimum amount of income someone can make before there are any charges for income tax AND what is reasonably considered as "income". Society has determined, through the legislature, when someone is making enough money to survive and then is capable of contributing to society in a monetary form.

The fact that income isn't defined imparts that society itself,through the judiciary, will decide what the definition of income is. What is "reasonably" considered income in the eyes of the consciousness of society.

So just as the roles of a household have changed, both parents work; husband knows how to cook; both parents contribute to child rearing; etc, so has society been able to adjust for what is "income". In both cases nothing is written down defining such things. The definition is a moving target based on societies consciousness (hit your wife with a 1" switch today and 80 years ago and the changing definition is very apparent).

So for all those Black's Law dictionary aficionados you better put away your dictionary and ask your neighbour; friend; worst enemy, what they think if you, hit your wife with a stick; didn't pay property tax (but they still had to); beat a friend of theirs to a pulp for accidentally scratching your car; and see what they say. What would you say to them if they asked? You don't need to read the law, you just need to read what society says.

I believe there is a clause in the interpretations act of constitution act to the effect that the law is to be "broadly interpreted", it is not static, a dictionary is only applicable until it is printed, then it is out of date.

Fuzzy
Edited once to repair quotation. AndyK

[Fussygus]

Looks like I need a crash course on how to crop a quote.

[rogfulton]

Looks like I need a crash course on how to crop a quote.

To close the quote, you should see [/quote], with the slash, in your reply window.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

And it’s time once again for another of our …

32 Quatloos Vignettes About David-Kevin: Lindsay

Vignette #3 – Causin’ a Ruckus!

This case is again from Lindsay’s tender years. Tender, but not quiet. In R. v. Lindsay (1998), 133 Man.R. (2d) 58 (Man. Q.B.) the Unlicensed Man is on trial for having caused a disturbance in the Winnipeg Law Courts Building. It was enough to lead to criminal charges! You just don’t see that kind of gumption from these new-fangled OPCA gurus, do you?

The judgment of Associate Chief Justice Oliphant is quite short, and since this judgment is not available on CanLII I have reproduced its entire text:

INTRODUCTION

1 As a result of an incident that occurred at the Law Courts Building on February 20, 1997, the police charged the respondent, David Lindsay, with causing a disturbance. Mr. Lindsay caused subpoenas to issue and be served upon each of the respondents. The respondents now seek an order quashing those subpoenas.

THE FACTS

2 The evidence before me on this application consists of affidavits sworn by the applicants, Wyant, Abbott and Eason, and one exhibit, a copy of the subpoena served upon one of the applicants.

3 Mr. Lindsay stands charged with causing a disturbance. The incident that precipitated the charge occurred at the Law Courts Building at Winnipeg on February 20, 1997. It involved Mr. Lindsay and the manager of the Court of Queen's Bench Registry.

4 On April 6, 1998, one day before Mr. Lindsay's trial on the charge of causing a disturbance was scheduled to proceed, Mr. Lindsay caused subpoenas to be issued and served on the applicants. Each of the applicants is employed in one capacity or another in the administration of justice in Manitoba.

5 The Honourable Judith M. Webster is the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Manitoba.

6 Carol Abbott is the Director of the Judicial Support Branch of the Department of Justice (Manitoba).

7 As at the date of the issuing and serving of the subpoena upon him, the respondent, Ray Wyant, now The Honourable Ray Wyant, a Judge of the Provincial Court of Manitoba, was a Senior Crown Attorney with the Department of Justice (Manitoba).

8 Lori Eason is a Magistrate in the Provincial Court of Manitoba and Katherine Thompson is a duly appointed Justice of the Peace of Manitoba.

9 None of the applicants observed the incident that resulted in the charge against Mr. Lindsay.

10 For reasons best known to himself, Mr. Lindsay chose not to tender any evidence whatsoever in response to the application.

THE ISSUES

11 Two issues emerge from the facts here.

12 First, are the applicants, or any of them, likely to give material evidence at the trial of Mr. Lindsay on the charge of causing a disturbance?

13 The second issue, which only arises in the event that I find that the applicants, or any of them, are likely to give material evidence, is whether any of the applicants is compellable to give evidence.

RELEVANT STATUTE LAW

14 The Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46:

698.(1) Where a person is likely to give material evidence in a proceeding to which this Act applies, a subpoena may be issued in accordance with this Part requiring that person to attend to give evidence.

RELEVANT CASE LAW

15 Only in circumstances where a person is likely to give material evidence may a subpoena be issued requiring that person to attend court to give evidence: R. v. Singh (1990), 57 C.C.C. (3d) 444 (Alta. Q.B.).

16 When a person subpoenaed to give evidence applies to the court for an order to quash the subpoena, the individual who obtained the subpoena bears the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the intended witness is likely to give evidence that is material in the proceeding. Authority for this proposition can be found in the decisions of R. v. Harris (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 478 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Yarema (1996), 27 O.R. (3d) 177 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.).

17 In Harris, supra, the court adopted the words of Craig J. in Re Stupp et al. and The Queen (1982), 70 C.C.C. (2d) 107, at p. 121 where he said:

... In my opinion, when a subpoena or the right to call a witness is challenged as here, it is not sufficient for the party proposing to call the witness to merely allege that the witness can give material evidence; but rather the onus is on the accused in this case to establish that it is likely that Brian Johnston can give material evidence. That is particularly applicable where, as here, the accused takes the extraordinary step of seeking to call Crown counsel as a witness....

18 A superior court has the jurisdiction to quash a subpoena on the basis that its issuance constitutes an abuse of process in that the court is satisfied that the subpoena was not issued for the purpose of obtaining material evidence or that the witness served is unable to give material evidence: Re Regina and McConnell (1977), 35 C.C.C. (2d) 435 (Sask. C.A.) and Re Baldwin and Bauer and The Queen (1980), 54 C.C.C. (2d) 85 (Ont. H.C.J.).

CONCLUSIONS

19 Mr. Lindsay, who bears the onus of demonstrating that the applicants whom he has subpoenaed, are likely to give material evidence at his trial on the charge of causing a disturbance, did not adduce any evidence whatsoever in response to the application to quash the subpoenas.

20 In his submission, Mr. Lindsay told me he believes that the charge against him is the result of a conspiracy on the part of certain Judges of the Provincial Court of Manitoba and employees of the Department of Justice (Manitoba). Essentially, he wants the applicants to testify at his trial for the purpose of enabling him to prove the existence of that alleged conspiracy.

21 Whether or not a conspiracy exists is not, in my view, material to the charge of causing a disturbance faced by Mr. Lindsay. It could, I suppose, be material on an application to quash the information charging Mr. Lindsay on the basis of an abuse of process. I am advised that Mr. Lindsay has filed such an application in this court and that it will be dealt with shortly.

22 Even if I were to conclude that the question of the existence of a conspiracy to commence criminal proceedings against Mr. Lindsay was material to the charge of causing a disturbance, I would have to base that conclusion on something more than the unsubstantiated allegation made by Mr. Lindsay. Mr. Lindsay would have to prove that the witnesses he wishes to call are likely to give evidence material to that issue. As noted, no evidence whatsoever was adduced by Mr. Lindsay.

23 In my opinion, Mr. Lindsay has failed to pass the threshold test in that he has failed to satisfy me that any of the applicants are likely to give material evidence in the proceeding in which Mr. Lindsay is charged with causing a disturbance. In light of Mr. Lindsay's failure to meet the threshold test, it is not necessary for me to decide the second issue dealing with the compellability of the intended witnesses to testify.

24 Accordingly, the application succeeds and I order that each of the five subpoenas obtained by Mr. Lindsay respecting the applicants be quashed.

25 I did not hear the parties on the question of costs. If costs remain an issue, the parties are free to arrange to have me deal with that issue.

Oh, those sneaky, sneaky judges! The conspiracy is irrelevant … because the judges say so! Because the conspiracy is irrelevant Dave could not summon and interrogate these scheming judges! And because Dave could not interrogate the conspiring judges Dave could not prove the conspiracy exists …

An ouroboros of a legal conundrum! And this is not the last time that Dave will find it difficult to identify the true culprits and miscreants of this world. Stay tuned for that.

I don't know whether Dave was found guilty of a criminal courthouse kafuffle, nor if he was guilty then what sentence he received. Solution? Dave must record more Youtube videos!

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Lindsay was scheduled to present his Victoria seminar last Saturday. Be interesting to find out how it went. Particularly attendance.

http://wearechangevictoria.com/wacv-fea ... -may-31st/

[Jeffrey]

What are the odds that they reported the income on those $75 tickets?

[arayder]

With the Clifford crew unable to provide the usual services to paying Deaners membership is dropping sharply. In steps Lindsay, like a company that buys the inventory of failed stores for pennies on the dollar, and provides the Deaners with a dose of woo at half the cost of a Clifford seminar.

One wonders how many Dean followers will now let their memberships lapse and follow the more sane Lindsay?

[arayder]

What are the odds that they reported the income on those $75 tickets?

One wonders if Dean reported the thousands of dollars earned in membership fees?

Dean has talked about not having access to his bank accounts. Is it possible that in the investigation of Dean's other alleged crimes the authorities realized he wasn't the usual impoverished freeman?

[notorial dissent]

One wonders how many Dean followers will now let their memberships lapse and follow the more sane Lindsay?

Now there's a thought I'd really rather not ponder at this hour of the morning,

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

It's a lovely June evening, so why shouldn't we settle in for another of those ...

32 Quatloos Vignettes About David-Kevin: Lindsay

Vignette #4 – Dave wrote a book!

Did you know Dave's an author? It's true! Entitled "Rights Denied! : how Your Government Has Stolen Your Right to Use the Highways You Pay For!", this is actually a REAL book! Not like Menard's electronic-only things. There are even pictures of it:

• Front: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d4Xf1O7mGDE/U ... ail-1.jpeg
  
  Back: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lnT08rL8mE8/U ... ail-2.jpeg

It was published in 1999 by "AAA Pub." of Manitoba - with a name like that you know this is going to be quality stuff.

I have searched high and low online for a scanned copy without any luck. It's mentioned by a few readers, but the only detailed account of its content is provided in a lengthy November, 2012 book review in the "UsuryFree Eye Opener" (http://usuryfree.blogspot.ca/2012/11/ri ... eview.html).

The reviewer is obviously very sympathetic and is a friend of Dave's - but that's no issue because the very detailed review goes a long way to indicate the scope of Dave's investigations and thought at that point in time. I'll quote it in full because if this review is accurate (and I have no reason to think otherwise) then "Rights Denied!" is an extremely important document in the evolution of OPCA thinking in Canada:

In the Preface of the book ‘Rights Denied,’ authored by David Kevin Lindsay (hereafter referred to as ‘David’) and published in Winnipeg, Manitoba in 1999 it is written: ‘For the benefit of all Canadians, here is the truth about your right to free travel. You can then do one of two things: (1) continue to pay unlawful fees, be subject to state interferences in your personal lives and freedom, and have your rights stolen from you or (2) refuse to succumb to the unlawful demands of the state and their hired, glorified tax collectors with guns. The choice, my friend is totally up to you.’

The content of ‘Rights Denied’ - 218 pages, includes Introduction, Preface, Epilogue and Appendices – focuses on how our governments (municipal, provincial, federal) have stolen our right to use our highways that we pay for.

In Chapter 1 titled ‘The Common Law,’ David explains the common law doctrine and how it applies to public highways in Canada. He makes it clear that the public are entitled not only to a free passage along the travelled part, but to a free passage along any portion of it not in the actual use of another traveller. (POW v Township of West Oxford OWR 1908 – 115)

Chapter 2 is titled ‘Foundations of Common Law.’David lauds the common law system of justice that we have inherited from England as the most liberating form of justice in the world. He points out that there are two fundamental principles of common law. (1) do not infringe upon the rights, freedoms or property of others and (2) keep all contracts willingly, knowingly and intentionally. According to Dave, these two fundamental principles are based on the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’

David also explains that there are a number of maxims that are regularly upheld and relied upon when pleaded in our courts. Some of these maxims are: (a) One is innocent until proven guilty. (b) For every wrong there is a remedy. (c) The law does not concern itself with trifles. (d) The end does not justify the means. (e) Fundamental principles cannot be set aside to meet the demands of convenience or to prevent hardship in a particular cause. (f) Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. (g) Two wrongs do not make a right. And probably the most fundamental maxim of all is: (h) One can enlarge the rights of the citizens, however, they cannot be taken away without the informed consent of the people.

In summary, under common law, the individual is supreme until he infringes upon someone else’s right.

In Chapter 2, David explains that common law, although in force in law and in theory, is not upheld as often as is required to be by our supposed defender of our rights, the courts. In summary, common law is not regularly practised. David suggests that our various levels of government have resorted to civil law and/or dictatorial law throughout the country. It is David’s opinion that the politically appointed and non-accountable judiciary also ignore common law principles and because of conditioning people have come to accept that ‘statutory laws’ passed by governments of the day are deemed to be law no matter what they purport to do, even if it destroys our rights in the process.

According to David’s research, because we-the-people are apathetic about defending our rights and freedoms we are permitting ‘statutory laws’ that destroy our rights and freedoms to be wrongly enforced.

As he summarizes Chapter 2, David writes: ‘It must be remembered that we have certain inalienable rights and freedoms in Canada under common law, and the government can only make ‘laws’ which benefit the people, not destroy their rights.’

In Chapter 3, titled ‘What Are Rights,’ David examines the definition of a ‘right’ whereby a ‘right’ is defined as something that one positively can do. David explains that once rights are secured by the people, they remain in perpetuity. David further explains that these rights are often enshrined in documents such as a Constitution, however, they can also be preserved in Acts such as a Bill of Rights. David also reminds Canadians that Canada does not have a ‘constitution’ – instead we have a Constitution Act.

Chapter 4 is titled ‘An Individual Cannot Be Charged a Fee in the Exercise of His Rights.’ The significance of this statement is that if an individual can be charged a fee in the exercise of anyone of his/her rights, s/he can then be charged a fee for all of them. Consequently, with the implementation of any fee structure, the rights the citizens once cherished become privileges for those who can afford to pay the fees.

David states: ‘The government cannot make a rule or pass laws which deny us our rights.’ And in closing Chapter 4, David writes: ‘The implications are enormous. An individual cannot be charged a fee in the exercise of a constitutional right. Period. Any charge for the exercise of such a right amounts to a denial of that right for thousands, if not tens of thousands of people every year. This is important in our discussion on your right to the free use of the highways.’

In Chapter 5, titled ‘Rights Cannot Be Surrendered,’ David discusses the fact that rights cannot be abrogated, abridged or denied in any way. He also adds: ‘Rights once secured cannot be converted into a privilege. Rights are supposed to be for all citizens, not just a few privileged people with large wallets.’

Chapter 6 is titled ‘Exercise of One’s Rights Cannot Be Converted To A Crime.’ In Chapter 6, David points out that the citizens of Canada have been given many rights over the years. He also reminds us that a substantial portion of these rights descend from English Common Law and the Magna Carta and that they are still valid in our court system in Canada.

David summarizes Chapter 6 by explaining that in theory, the state cannot make criminals from citizens who are exercising their lawful rights, however, in practice the government is intent on making criminals of those citizens who dare to exercise their rights, simply because it is in their best interests to do so.

Chapter 7 is titled ‘Inalienable Rights.’ David writes: ‘Inalienable rights are so fundamentally important to the individual that they can never be lawfully denied to them. David then presents the definition of ‘Inalienable Rights’ as written in Black’s Law Dictionary: ‘Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.’

In summary, David lists the absolute rights: (1) personal security (2) personal liberty and (3) right to own and enjoy personal property.

In Chapter 7, David distinguishes between two kinds of persons, natural and artificial wherein he writes: ‘We are natural persons, i.e. created by God. Artificial persons are fictitious entities which we have created to serve our purposes. These are also called corporations or bodies politic.’

Also in Chapter 7, David focuses on two of these rights which concern our right to drive on highways – the right to personal liberty and the right to own and enjoy property. David writes: ‘Personal liberty allows the individual to move, by any mode or system, either walking, horse etc., without restraint, imprisonment, or hindurance of any kind.’

Focusing on the topic of the book, David writes: ‘To secure the exercise of one’s inalienable right to the free use of the highways, one must be given the right to be able to do so by the ordinary means of the day.’

Chapter 8 is titled ‘Right To The Free Use of the Highway.’ David lists a variety of definitions of ‘highway,’ then he explains: ‘In their original use, highways were nothing more than simply a cleared path through the forest or whatever ground was being traversed. Over time, they became used for travel by horses, horse drawn carriages and today by automobiles.’

David cites various court cases to prove that the actual inalienable right to the free use of the highways has been here since time immemorial, a general way of stating that is has been here so long it is impossible to put a definite date on when it came into existence.

Next David explains that the state unlawfully intrudes into the lives of citizens by imposing fees on its citizens which prohibit them from pursuing their respective trades – simply because they cannot travel to work without paying the fee for the license.

David cites other court cases to show that the inalienable right to the free use of the highways has been recognized and that there is no doubt as to the lawfulness of this sacred right. Next David points out that various levels of government keep telling Canadians that travelling on the highway is a privilege.

David asks the question: ‘If the citizens have the inalienable right to the free use of the highways, why is it that they are scared to do so? David explains that the obvious answer is: ‘Because the state has for many years continually lied by telling the people that it is a privilege. If something is told repeatedly over time, the people will gradually believe it simply because they do not have the time to research the truth.’

David explains that governments do not own the highways, therefore citizens of Canada have the inalienable right to the free use of the highways by any mode or system of transportation compatible with the purpose of the highway.

Then he quotes an astounding decision on the right for citizens to travel freely in their vehicle on the highways and public roads in Canada.

‘At the outset I must express my shocked amazement at the contention of counsel for the minister that the claim of a resident of Alberta to a driver’s licence - and consequently to drive upon the highways of Alberta - is a privilege and not a right. Since time immemorial the Queen’s subjects have been free to move along the Queen’s highway provided only they kept the Queen’s peace. While the requirement of technical competence in the operation of that modern mode of conveyance, the motor vehicle, may for the public safety, require the subject to prove that competence, as a condition to the issue of a licence to drive - and the consequent right to drive - that requirement does not reduce a ‘right’ into a ‘privilege.’

Because it is my duty to be technically competent to drive, my right to drive is not destroyed, although it may be taken away from me or suspended if I fail in the performance of my duty. The introduction of a dangerous mode of conveyance has not destroyed or impaired my right, but it has enlarged my duty. The keeping of the Queen’s peace now embraces an obligation on me to be so technically and physically competent that I shall not drive to the danger of any of Her Majesty’s subjects. When I have fulfilled my obligation, when I have performed my duty, my right to move freely upon the Queen’s highways, remains intact and unimpaired. I know of no legislation which has reduced my inviolable right to drive into a privilege to be granted or refused at the uncontrolled whim of some petty bureaucrat.’ (28 WWR, 36 R v Minister of Highways) - Alberta Supreme Court 1959.

David explains that the regulations of the Highway Traffic Act can regulate the use of the highways, however they cannot prohibit the free use of them, with the exception of course, of those who use the highways for profit or gain. David acknowledges that although the Highway Traffic Act is within the law in imposing licensing, registration and insurance laws upon those making a living upon the highways, any citizens right to travel freely ought to be fully protected and they ought not be charged a penalty or sanctioned upon exercising their guaranteed inalienable rights. In summary, David argues that the government cannot lawfully convert the rights of the citizens into privileges for any reason.

David writes: ‘I submit that there is no more important and significant right of the individual than that of the free use of the highways. ... The exercise of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to work, and almost any other right you can think of, in some way or another is dependent upon your ability to travel somewhere.’

Chapter 9 is titled ‘Rights Cannot Be Surrendered or Converted Into Privileges.’
In Chapter 9, David explains that the Legislatures of each province have demanded that citizens give up their lawful, inalienable right to the free use of the highways in order for them to exercise a privilege, the privilege of travelling with your own personal vehicle on the public highways. David reminds readers that the essence of freedom in Canada is that the state cannot take away citizen’s rights without their informed, knowledgeable consent.

Chapter 10 is titled ‘The Fees Themselves.’ In Chapter 10 David focuses on the issue that even though every Canadian has the inalienable right to the free use of the highways and that this fundamental right entails the right to do so by ordinary means of transportation of the day i.e. their own vehicle, they are currently being charged unlawful fees in the exercise of this right. David refers to these fees as extortion and he describes the amounts of the various fees, their purpose and their effects.

Chapter 11 is titled ‘Taking The Test.’ This chapter deals with the format of the governments testing procedures for driving and he suggests some improvements for the obvious insufficiencies of the current testing protocol. David commences this chapter by expressing that government justifies charging a fee for licensing and insurance by proclaiming that such laws help prevent accidents. However, over the years, even though the courts have repeatedly stated that the actual licence has no relation to the traveller’s ability to operate their automobile, judges still use this as an unlawful excuse to deny citizen’s their rights. Instead, David presents evidence this knowledge about rules of the road is more likely to prevent accidents. David also writes about the required quota system of police forces and how the present testing system permits those unqualified people who are not proficient at operating an automobile to be easy bait for ticketing by the police. David argues that safety comes from experience and the best experience comes from travelling on the highways themselves.

Chapter 12 is titled ‘Nature and Purpose of Licensing.’ In this chapter, David outlines the definition of licence as written in Black’s Law Dictionary:

‘A licence is a personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable. The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise, not allowable.’

David summarizes chapter 12 by stating: ‘It is readily apparent that the nature of a licence is in the form of a privilege. ... The most recognizable intent and purpose is to raise money for greedy politicians.’

David reminds readers that travellers do not need a license of any kind in the exercise of a right to travel freely on the highways - contrary to what the state dictates.

Chapter 13 is titled ‘Travelling is a Right, Driving is a Privilege.’ In Chapter 13, David writes: ‘There is one exception to the absolute right to the free use of the highways. There is no inherent right for anyone to use the public highways for private gain or profit.’ David recognizes that drivers of commercial vehicles can be required to be licensed and insured by governments – but only while driving during those hours while doing commerce.

David clearly explains that the automobile was originally used for pleasure and private travelling purposes, whereas the commercial, motor vehicles were created strictly for commercial purposes. Over the years, governments subverted people’s rights and referred to everyone’s private automobiles as ‘commercial motor vehicles,’ thereby forcing them to be licensed under the various Highway Traffic Acts – where the definitions of ‘driver’ and ‘traveller’ are no longer distinguished as different. David defines this action as ‘fraud.’

Chapter 14 is titled ‘Total Carnage.’ This chapter deals with the issues around the ‘total carnage argument’ – which reasons that there is correlation between insurance fees and licensing and the number of accidents on the roads. Indeed, a licence is not a certificate of proficiency, if it was a test would be compulsory every time one pays the required, annual fee. David suggests that the government commonly infers that having a licence infers that one will not have an accident. Paying an annual licence fee has no relevance to one’s driving capabilities and indeed, most accidents occur between individuals who are licensed and insured.

David summarizes chapter 14 with these sentences: ‘The fee is simply a tax on the extraordinary use of the highways by those using it for private gain or profit. It also provides a means of unlawfully controlling the citizens whom the government have coerced into trading their inalienable rights for that of a privilege.’

Chapter 15 is titled ‘Suspensions.’ David explains that the issue of ‘suspensions’ is one of the most controversial aspects regarding the use of the highways – since it is the most severe form of punishment that is imposed on travellers who view the automobile as a necessity. David explains that bureaucrats acting as agents for the provincial government do not have the jurisdiction to prohibit. Since they only have the jurisdiction to regulate, they do not have any lawful jurisdiction or authority to deny an individual his/her lawful rights without a judicial hearing – with a justice of the peace or a magistrate who knows the law and still protects one’s rights and freedoms.

Regarding the importance of judicial decisions, the judge in the Christofferson case (R v Minster of Highways 1959 28 WWR 36) is quoted as saying: ‘I know of no legislation which has reduced my inviolable right to drive into a privilege to be granted or refused at the uncontrolled whim of some petty bureaucrat.’

Chapter 16 is titled ‘Contract Law.’ In this chapter, David explains how government uses contracts to destroy the traveller’s right to free use of the highways. David explains that when travellers sign the driver’s licence they are signing a contract with terms set forth in the Highway Traffic Act. These terms include the requirements for payment of the stated fees for the driver’s licence, the automobile registration, the insurance fees, gratuities etc. David argues that government forces travellers to sign their inalienable rights away for the privilege of using the highways.

Chapter 17 is titled ‘Powers of the Government.’ David devotes this chapter to explaining the powers of responsible government. David suggests that the politicians are no longer accountable to their employees – the voters. David points out that the politicians are under no obligation, legal or otherwise to inform their constituents of the truth in any matter. David ends the chapter with this quote: ‘Those who do not fight for their rights, do not deserve them.’

Chapter 18 is titled ‘The Powers of the Police.’ In this chapter, David explains that the state (police) have no authority to intrude into your life unless you have actually done something unlawful and there is a victim. David explains further that the police now assume they can arbitrarily pull over anyone at any time for any reason. The truth is that the drivers of commercial vehicles are subject to such police authority, but travellers exercising their right to free use of the highways are supposed to be exempted from this guise of ‘effective traffic enforcement.’

Chapter 19 is titled ‘American Law.’ In chapter 19, David explains that both United States and Canadian Law are founded on the Common Law of England. Dave points out that the Supreme Court of Canada quotes from American Case Law in their decisions, on a regular basis. David suggests that while Americans seem willing to fight for their rights and freedoms, too many Canadians seem apathetic and surrender too easily to perceived government power.

Chapter 20 is titled ‘Effect of the Charter.’ David refers to that document of 1982 as the Charter of Less Rights and Less Freedoms. David points out that the BNA Act, although not a constitution was simply renamed as such in the earlier years of the 20th Century. David reminds readers that the Charter has not changed our previously held rights and freedoms.

Chapter 21 is titled ‘Abatements.’ In this chapter, David suggests that few people know about filing an abatement as it is a plea that the courts will never tell you about because they know its implications. David explains that an abatement is a plea in which the defendant shows why he should not be impleaded, or if he must plead, not in the manner or form commonly required. According to David, the issue of abatement is not an easy one to understand. He does however, suggest that it is the only route to choose whereby a traveller can defend his/her rights and freedoms without acceding to the jurisdiction of the court. David suggests that the optimal resource book on abatement is ‘Corpus Juris Secundum, Balckstones Commentaries, Abridgment of the Law by Matthew Bacon.

Chapter 22 is titled ‘How Should it Work.’ In this chapter David presents some common sense solutions that could be applied to travellers while recognizing that those drivers using the highways for commerce fall under a different category and must comply with all vehicle and driver licensing and registration requirements set forth by the government.

Chapter 23 is titled ‘Point System.’ In this chapter, David reviews the demerit point system and describes it as operating like a disguised taxation system. David is critical of the demerit point system as it gives the police complete power and control to unlawfully collect more fees (revenue) for the government. David suggests that the demerit point system is yet another disguised taxation grab whereby most people are convicted and fines with no witnesses, no victims, no complainants, and no crime. David supports a point system somewhat similar to the present demerit point system however, he recommends that no fines be associated with any loss of points.

Chapter 24 is titled ‘The Rules of the Road and Traffic Control.’ In this chapter, David addresses the issues of speeding regulations and traffic control devices, such as effective light synchronization, stop signs and yield signs. David is critical of all aspects of the present system of traffic control. In David’s opinion, present speed limits are not designed in the best interests of providing effective and optimum control of the flow of traffic. David suggests that while speed limits in residential areas are satisfactory, general speed limits on main streets in urban areas and on highways in rural areas are far too slow. Since people tend to ignore the slower speed limits as being unreasonable, they are vulnerable to being ticketed by the police – yet another tax grab.

According to David, the most significant issue that needs to be addressed is that of traffic control devices such as street lights. David writes: ‘Cars will move safely and efficiently if proper planning would be done to ensure that all lights were as properly synchronized as possible as a rate of speed that would allow people to get where they have to go in a reasonable period of time.’ David recommends that most stop signs in residential areas could be replaced with yield signs to improve traffic flow.

I must insert my own observation regarding traffic flow in Cebu City, Philippines where I visited in April 2012. There are very few lights and very few stop signs and yet traffic flows remarkable well without the safety of vehicles or pedestrians being compromised.

Chapter 25 is titled ‘Insurance.’ David suggests that the imposition of mandatory insurance is a scam, since it takes away any vestibule of responsibility that travellers once had for their actions on the highway. David writes: ‘The imposition of a fee of any kind has no bearing on one’s ability to exercise his/her skills and abilities to travel safely.’

David writes: ‘Everything has risks. The people assume those risks when they use the highways. The duty to minimize these risks rests with the individual using the highways. The risk is not eliminated or even reduced by forcing the person to pay a fee.’

David also includes this thought-provoking quote from Fred Kyburz: ‘What the ministerial and police powers forget when speaking of ‘Public Safety,’ is that when citizens or individuals place themselves in the direct vicinity of the provincial highways and streets, and then involve themselves in activities which involve the streets and highways, there is risk of injury or loss and there is the risk of gain. This risk is entered into by the individual’s free will and the way to eliminate risk is to eliminate the closeness in activity, and not by creating more laws. There is no such thing as a risk free street or highway, and we enter at our own risk, and it is an obvious risk at that. It is not the responsibility of the provincial legislature of the citizens to supply risk free streets and highways to the general public. Does the province require General Motors to only sell risk free automobiles within the province? The right to travel is not a privilege, nor is the right to travel risk free.’

Chapter 26 is titled ‘The Fines Themselves.’ In this chapter, David is critical of the manner in which multiple millions of dollars of fines collected and spent by governments with basically no accountability to the public. David summarizes the content of Chapter 26 with this sentence: ‘The government cannot have access to any money from the people exercising their absolute right to the free use of the highways.’

Chapter 27 is titled ‘What About the Lost Money?’ In this chapter, David reminds readers that the Federal Government has the exclusive, sovereign right to issue its own credit and they ought to obey the constitution and do just that. David writes: ‘The government has no lawful right to use the streets and highways as a means of raising revenue by interfering with the lawful right of the citizens to use them.’

Chapter 28 is titled ‘Show Cause Hearings.’ David explains that at a ‘show cause hearing’ the accused is the one who has to justify one’s actions and why one should not have one’s right to travel suspended. Show cause hearings are fully controlled by the government whereby any traveller who is determined to be a threat or danger to others on the highway is guilty and must prove him/herself innocent. David refers to ‘show cause hearings’ as ‘reverse onus hearings.’ David points out that the bureaucrats who oversee ‘show cause hearings’ really have no legal authority to suspend the rights of travellers - only a judicial office has this authority.

In the ‘Epilogue’ – page 184 – it is written: ‘If there is anything to be learned from this book, it is that the government of this country, in co-operation with the various police forces, are our direct enemies. As verified by the Roman Corporation case in the Supreme Court and the Littlechild case in Alberta, politicians have no lawful responsibility or duty to citizens who elect them. In Canada, we have seen the slow, systematic destruction of our most cherished rights since the introduction of the Bank Act in 1914. The inalienable right to free travel has been destroyed, the right to not be denied justice has been destroyed, the right to own property has been destroyed, the right to free speech has been destroyed etc. These have all been destroyed, albeit it temporarily, because we can take them back at any time. This is not to say it will be easy, for as mentioned earlier, it is far easier to fight in advance to protect your rights, then to fight after we have allowed them to be taken from us. But we still can regain them.’

On pages 187 – 189, David has a complete ‘List of Authorities,’ followed by seven details Appendices.

About the Author – David Kevin Lindsay:
‘David Kevin Lindsay is a native Winnipegger who for the past 20+ years has been working as a legal researcher. David is commonly referred to as Canada’s best ‘guerilla lawyer’ and he has acted as ‘agent’ for many fellow-Canadians from the east coast to the west coast. David has a strong interest in the traditional rights and freedoms which form the basis of our legal system and which we have inherited as part of our Anglo-Saxon Common Law heritage. In the book ‘Rights Denied,’ David traces the path which has been followed in recent years by Canadian governments bent on turning just one of our ancient freedoms into yet another tax base with which to pillage the public.’

NOTE: David Kevin Lindsay still has copies of the book “Rights Denied.” The cost is $20.00 plus $4.00 shipping. Cash or money order. The mailing address for copies of “Rights Denied” is: CLEAR, P. O. Box 21113 Cherry Lane Mall, Penticton, British Columbia
V2A 6W0

If this review is accurate then "Rights Denied" is a remarkably significant document. Look at how many ideas which are familiar motifs in the Freeman-on-the-Land schema are already present and fully developed. This book was published about a year before the magic movement when Robert Menard (according to "Your Child or Her Life!" (http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thinkfr ... orlife.pdf)) was dragged by a large Indian to meet his love-object-to-be in a scummy Vancouver dive - and then begin his descent into Freemanship.

I have never seen Menard acknowledge the debt he owes Lindsay for the ideas he flogs to this day. But here is pretty damn clear evidence that Menard was just that much more of a copycat and plagiarist than has been previously acknowledged.

If anyone digs up a copy of "Rights Denied!" I'd love to hear details and comments. I'll post at a later point some research I've done on the case law cited in the review, because that too is interesting.

David-Kevin: Freakin' Lindsay. Who's to blame for all this crap? Dave! Dave did it! Let's set the record straight and have history give credit where credit is due.

SMS Möwe

[grixit]

Actually, the founding principle of english common law is: "as of now William of Normandy owns all the land". I think even sovs would agree that it's a good thing we have moved far away from that one.

[Jeffrey]

Let's not give Lindsay too much credit. If indeed the book was written in 1999 he was several years late to the party. The US "right to travel" movement was well established (if not waning) by that point. Timothy McVeigh was driving without a license or plates as early as 1995. John Quade was also giving "right to travel" lectures in the early 90's. etc etc etc. In fact the chapter on abatements strongly suggests plagiarism from 90's patriot sources.

[Fmotlgroupie]

What a spectacular meta-document! It's like uncovering a commentary for a missing Homeric epic: not as good as finding the original, but still so much to work with!

There are overwhelming errors in every paragraph - I don't know if I could equal that if Quatloos had a "write your own fake OPCA screed" contest.

It's also fascinating that D:K-L got into (well to do) detaxing and (down at heels) Right To Trsvel ideas while he was still in Manitoba - was he, like Freemen, too disorganized and broke to afford licence and insurance, or did he just have a heavy foot and a disregard for traffic laws? I suspect the latter given the book's emphasis on the iniquity of fines, points, and licence suspensions, rather than on the unimportance of insurance.

Thanks again Mowe!

[Fmotlgroupie]

Let's not give Lindsay too much credit. If indeed the book was written in 1999 he was several years late to the party. The US "right to travel" movement was well established (if not waning) by that point. Timothy McVeigh was driving without a license or plates as early as 1995. John Quade was also giving "right to travel" lectures in the early 90's. etc etc etc. In fact the chapter on abatements strongly suggests plagiarism from 90's patriot sources.

I think Canadian OPCA ideas are almost always copies of old American ideas (didn't we sign the free trade agreement to get rid of this branch-plant mentality? Or was that just for the actual economy? Oh well.). Lindsay's genius, such as it is, has been to research, dredge up, or otherwise regurgitate uniquely Canadian justifications for pseudo legal ideas from an entirely different country. It's a hell of an intellectual exercise, in a crazy-person way.