David-Kevin: Lindsay: The Unlicensed Man

[Arthur Rubin]

I can't remember now whether it was Vermont or NH that the sovrunidjit contingent was talking about inhabiting and turning into an idiots paradise now,

That was the Free State Project. No evidence that they're sovrunidjits, they seem to be more-or-less libertarian, although impractical. According to Wikipedia, they do have 11 of the 400 New Hampshire House of Representatives.

[notorial dissent]

The group I was sort of following was definitely of the sovrunidjit variety, and I lost track of them quite some time ago, as I think it was another great sovrun dream that imploded of its own inertia.

[Burnaby49]

Readers may remember that a few weeks ago I attended Jean-Serge Brisson's "Tax Collection Is SLAVERY Tour" seminar. As I noted in my posting of that epochal event I met David Lindsay and bought some of his books. It's paying off already. Just started going through the "Lucy" document that kick-started the Canadian Freeman movement, Lindsay's "Rights DENIED!: How Your government has stolen Your Right to use Your Highways You pay for!". At page three of the introduction we have the following paragraph:

It was Fred Kyburz who provided me with the direction in which to go as well as the preliminary and vitally important information which got me started. Subsequent to this, it was the support and trust of Ozzie (Byarne Aasland), Fred, George Armstrong, Gene Anderson, and many of our group members here in Winnipeg {CAGE- Citizens Against Government Excess} who kept me going.

CAGE! Who the hell are they? Off to Google for help. And, as usual, it comes through;

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Archi ... ver-e.html

High level stuff! Evidence before the Standing Committee on Finance, Meeting No. 184, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 1995 concerning: "Pre-budgetary consultations through a round table discussion on economic provisions". Chair: Jim Peterson.

And one witness is none other than David Lindsay, Secretary-Treasurer of Citizens Against Government Excess. Here's a transcript of what Dave had to say;

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/archi ... blk-e.html

Mr. David Lindsay (Secretary-Treasurer, Citizens Against Government Excess): Citizens Against Government Excess is a relatively new non-profit group that was formed within the city in the last year. Our group is dedicated to advising Canadians from across the country about the illegal government income tax, which is highly unconstitutional - the illegal government currency issuance. Our federal government has sold out the entire nation's wealth to a bunch of foreign and independent bankers

The Constitution of this country currently exclusively requires the federal government to have certain responsibilities which it is prevented, by a Supreme Court of Canada decision, from delegating to anybody. Those responsibilities include the issuance of currency for the entire country, as well as the interest. These are currently set by the Bank of Canada. If you look in your phone book, it is a private organization.

The money of the country is currently set out by the federal government. It gives its bonds and treasury bills to the Bank of Canada. It then sells them to private bankers, who create the money in their computers that might never have existed before it was issued, and neither would the interest to pay that money off. The debt situation we have today is at the point where it is mathematically impossible to it pay off. It will never get paid.

With everybody here today it reminds me of last year's hearing, where everybody sits and talks about how these issues are going to affect them directly. For example, the Manitoba Society of Seniors is here this evening, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and various other people. I will be talking later about the solution to the country's problems, the illegal activities of our provincial and federal governments in the issuance of currency, and get to the heart of the situation.

I have tried for two years to meet with the parliamentary secretary, David Walker, who is my own MP. I've been rebuffed over the course of two years. I have not been allowed to see him. Obviously he does not want the information to be made public; therefore, I am forced to come here today again and present the information on the record. I will get into more detail about it subsequently during the meeting. Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Lindsay. So far I haven't heard anything that would suggest you understand what our constitutional system is all about, but that's fine....

Mr. Lindsay: I want to address one of the issues Mr. Grubel talked about. Canada is not living beyond its means. We are the richest country in the world in terms of resources and people. For the size of its population, Canada has done more to contribute to technology, science and various other aspects, both within Canada and around the world, than any other country.

You've stated that Canada is going roughly $100 million further in debt every 24 hours, and that legacy will have to be passed on to our children. Do you know where that money is coming from? That money is interest. The money that our government borrowed from the banks never existed before it was borrowed. The interest on the money did not exist. The principle was borrowed, but the interest wasn't.

If I lend you $10 and you agree to pay me back $11 at the end of the year, you've agreed to the impossible. It cannot be done because the money is not there to pay it back unless you want to work to pay it off. Or if you borrow it again next year, if you roll it over.... That's what the current federal government is doing with their bonds every year. They roll it over every year so that they can afford to pay the interest on it.

Mr. Grubel: Explain something to me. The Department of Agriculture has subsidized the Crow rate. Let's say it was $1 billion a year and there wasn't an equivalent amount of revenue to pay for it. In order to pay the workers and pay for the diesel fuel and all that, it had to obtain $1 billion. So it went to the capital markets in New York and said, we have a piece of paper that says we promise to pay you 10% a year on that $1 billion for 20 years. Are there any takers who will give us the $1 billion in return for this note? These investment funds and pension funds in New York and Toronto said, okay, here's the $1 billion. Explain to me where we don't have a problem.
Mr. Lindsay: The thing is if you don't -

Mr. Grubel: - billions of dollars in the past, and now add $565 billion by the feds alone, and every year $50 billion is due in interest. Where is there no problem? Why is there no problem?

Mr. Lindsay: There is a problem, because the federal government was given the power to issue the currency of this country, not to go borrow it from people or from the bank, which will create the money out of nothing.

Mr. Grubel: It's not a bank; it's a pension fund.

Mr. Lindsay: Where does the money in the pension funds come from? It comes from the people who had to work for it.

Mr. Grubel: That's right. Where's the bank?

Mr. Lindsay: I refer you to a 1939 report I handed out to all the members from the standing committee report on banking and commerce. The governor of the Bank of Canada was asked at that time, if the federal government issues a $1,000 bond and/or a treasury bill, whatever you want to call it, and goes to the private banks or whatever, where does that money come from? The governor admitted in that report that they had to issue some brand new currency. To pay that currency off, the government taxes the hell out of every Canadian.

It's the same as if you buy a house. If you want to buy a house for $100,000, the bank issues $100,000 to you. Where did that money come from? It didn't come from depositors' money, because that is illegal. That is brand new money that was created. They won't give you that $100,000 in cash. That money stays in the bank. They will not give you that money in cash. Why? Because that money doesn't exist. The federal government is in the same boat.
I'll give you a quote from a former director of the -

Mr. Grubel: I don't wish to engage in a debate over monetary policy.

Mr. Lindsay: This is the issue here. We're all talking about individual problems and how they affect us, but nobody's getting at the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem in this country is where that money is coming from. Very few Canadians know how currency is issued in this country, very few. If everybody knew how currency is issued in this country, you'd have a revolt on your hands tomorrow.

The Chair: On that basis I think we should keep everybody in the dark.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lindsay: I want to address some issues to David Walker that I've been trying to get to him in person.

As you're aware, Mr. Walker, there's a constitution in this country made up by the British North America Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, neither of which is taught to any degree in our schooling system. The American constitution is important and is taught in detail, but in Canada, from the research I've done in talking to various principals in Winnipeg and around the province of Manitoba, it's hardly even talked about in our schools.

One of the things our constitution does say is that there are certain powers for the federal and provincial governments. The federal government does have the power of interest, legal tender, bankruptcy and insolvency, the issuance of currency and bills of exchange or promissory notes.

Almost all of the money in circulation today is because the federal government has borrowed that money. The federal government has the power to issue the currency of this country for defence, unemployment, social programs, government wages, infrastructure, etc. Why should the federal government, which can make that money interest- and debt-free, unconstitutionally give that power to a private monopoly and then borrow that money back, with compound interest, to the point of national bankruptcy, when we can never pay that damned money off? Answer that, please.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the witness and I have met previously and we have discussed this in writing. We have a fundamental disagreement about this issue.

Mr. Lindsay: I still don't have an answer, Mr. Walker. Why should your government...? Paul Martin Sr. issued debt-free money to finance World War II. Why can it not be done today? It was done in the 1940s and 1950s.

The Chair: I'm not sure I understand this. Who should be given this interest-free money that the federal government can print? To whom should we issue this money free of charge?

Mr. Lindsay: Let's say Canada spent $10 billion on defence in a year. That money -

The Chair: Just answer my question. Who should we give it to?

Mr. Lindsay: That money is to be used only for the people, for government services. Get the structure -

The Chair: Okay, so we should be able to print paper money and pay for anything within the federal budget.

Mr. Lindsay: What do you think the banks do? They do the same thing. The only thing is that the banks charge usurious interest and the government has to tax the hell out of every Canadian to pay for it. That money never existed before.

The Chair: I just want to know where you're coming from. We should be able to print money to the tune of $160 billion a year, because those are our expenses, and we wouldn't have to charge taxes.

Mr. Lindsay: That's correct.

The Chair: So taxes are out the window.

Mr. Emberley: Could I also - ?

The Chair: I just want to explain, Mr. Lindsay.

Mr. Lindsay: I want to bring something to your attention.

The Chair: So we have no more taxes; we'll just print money for our expenditures. How do you buy your house? How do you rent your house? Where do you get the money for that?

Mr. Lindsay: I'm not advocating the dissolution of banks. Banks have a necessary -

The Chair: I didn't ask you that. I just want to know how we get money if government doesn't have to worry about it, if we just print money, spend it and get rid of taxes. How do you get money? Do you get it from working and getting a salary?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes.

The Chair: If you want to buy a house, do you have to pay interest on it or do you just have to put so much money down?

Mr. Lindsay: When I buy a house from a bank.... Let's say I buy it for $100,000. I'll put so much money down and the rest is borrowed from the bank -

The Chair: Should you have to pay interest?

Mr. Lindsay: That money never existed before.

The Chair: Should you have to pay interest on that? That's what I want to know.

Mr. Lindsay: At bargain levels, sure.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Lindsay: At the bank's operating expenses, you can bargain on that. But the banks should not be allowed to make the money for the country.

The Chair: Okay, I understand.

Mr. Lindsay: On a private level, there is no problem.

I want to point out one thing, if I can take two minutes. I have figures given to be by the finance minister of Manitoba, Eric Stefanson. He expects to collect approximately $1.475 billion in personal income tax, while the federal government is expected to collect $2.95 billion, for a total of $4.425 billion in income tax in Manitoba for the 1995-96 fiscal year.

I can go through the details on it, but that's not the issue. The fact is that the federal government does not have the power to issue a direct tax on incomes in this country. That is strictly a provincial power. If that money was to be collected only by Manitoba, in five years the entire provincial debt of Manitoba would be paid for, and the income tax rate could be lowered by 60%.

Mr. Discepola: That's the same argument the separatists use in Quebec.

Mr. Lindsay: Why do the separatists want to separate? That's a very good point. The separatists want to separate for one reason - economics. Unemployment is extremely high. I believe it's about 20% in Montreal right now. The basic reason for Quebec's separation is economics. They're not doing too well under Canada and they want the power to....

Certain powers were given to them and the federal government has usurped those powers from the provinces. The provinces have only given these to them and now they're talking about devolving those powers and giving them back to the provinces. Those provinces should have had them from the beginning. They should never have been taken away from them, and one of them is income tax. That's strictly a provincial power, and if anybody doubts that they should read Hansard from the English House of Lords at the passing of the British North America Act in 1867. It was stated on two occasions that the federal government is not to have an income tax, and the only three levels of overlapping jurisdiction between provincial and federal power are agriculture, irrigation and public works. Federal government taxation was never mentioned anywhere in this country, and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in 1950. Why are you still taxing us? I won't get an answer for that, will I?

The Chair: You will, Mr. Lindsay. Can you tell us how the taxing powers are divided up under the British North American Act, in sections 91 and 92?

Mr. Lindsay: Section 92 is the provincial powers. It states that the powers of direct taxation can be used within a province and only for provincial purposes.

The Chair: And federal?

Mr. Lindsay: And the federal government was given indirect taxation, the raising of money by a mode or system of taxation. As you will -

The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor]

Mr. Lindsay: No, it doesn't. Mode or system as defined in Black's dictionary of law, sir, is a method or early system of doing something -

The Chair: I -

Mr. Lindsay: Can I finish here?

The Chair: I've heard you. The courts of England and the courts of Canada have held that there is absolutely no merit to what you're saying, that the federal government can tax by either direct or indirect mode. If you don't like it, that's a different issue. But when you come here and try to give us a legal opinion that is so spurious, you just indicate that you have no credibility whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. Maybe other members here would like....

To other people who have not had an opportunity to get their points across, I'll ask each of you to summarize in 30 seconds before we close off.

The Chair: ... Mr. Lindsay, you have 30 seconds.

Mr. Lindsay: Basically, sir, I'll leave you with two quotes from a former director of the Bank of England, the second richest man in England in 1920. He said that all complexities, confusion, distress, strength, economic depressions, instabilities, inflation and devaluation, experiences of the world, rise not from defects in constitutions, not for want of honour or virtue in common people, not from a desire to be selfish or to see others suffer, but from the downright ignorance of the nature of money, the nature of credit and nature of financiers who control and manipulate them. Until the privileges and powers of private bankers are taken back from them, and nations and their people recover that which has been appropriated by them, great fortunes, indentured servants, exulted elite, demagogues and autocrats in government as their pawns will remain.

So there you have it! Unlike other morons in the Freeman-on-the-Land movement, David Kevin Lindsay has the ear of politicians in the highest levels of government. Sure, they think he's wrong - but they had to listen to him!

Well, for 30 seconds.

[Burnaby49]

Another chapter in the litigation saga of the Unlicensed Man. This is a bit of history but a big event for David-Kevin, his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada! Some Googling accidentally turned up David Kevin Lindsay's 2011 leave application to the SCC. Here's the SCC file record:

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/i ... ?cas=34331

And it's an appeal of his claim he didn't have to pay income tax: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99

Without further ado...

Dave's Factum!

http://www.mediafire.com/view/dsc9l9r1c ... 034331.pdf

It starts with Lindsay personally badgering the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, at a public meeting;

i. Recently, Chief Justice McLaughlin spoke in Kelowna, B.C. I attended and inquired of her of this Court’s refusal to grant Leave to self-represented litigants, despite its advertising to the contrary, and the Court’s refusal to grant Leave on my five (5) previous applications, at least two of which easily met the test for Leave to be granted.

ii. I brought to her attention of my concern (and that of thousands of other Canadians who read of this case in the media) with the Court’s granting Leave to Bell Canada and then actually hearing the appeal within one month, on an issue that was not of national importance and only involved shareholders of the company. The Chief Judge’s response was to “keep on trying” and someday I would get through. This is my attempt to get through.

And he provides statistics to back up his claim of unfair treatment;

The statistics show that from 2000 -2007:

a. 914 applications for Leave were file by self-represented litigants;
b. 73 were dismissed for time violations or other administrative issues;
c. 841 total Leave Applications decided on the merits of the Applications;
d. Only 3 Applications were accepted, for a percentage of 0.0035671, or about 3.5/1000;
e. Assuming 2 of these 3 were criminally related Applications, this would result in a
success rate of 0.0023781, or about 2.4/1000 applications.

iv. Despite the lack of legal experience and knowledge from many of these self-represented litigants, a success rate this low, is clearly indicative of an institutionalized bias against self-represented litigants, and impossibility of Leave being granted. There is clearly no other explanation. Having said this, it is my sincerest hope and expectations that this case, which I believe so clearly meets the test for Leave to be granted, and with my knowledge on these issues, should be granted. My Affidavit further speaks to this matter in support of this Application.

These are the issues he wanted the Supreme court to review;

Part 2 Issues in Question

A. Are the Coronation Oath Act and Promises of the Monarch part of the Constitution of Canada, and if so, can Her Majesty pass laws contrary to same?
B. What is the correct definition of the word “person”?
C. Are trial judges required to produce their Oaths on demand?
D. Was there an interference with the independence or impartiality of the trial judge?

The coronation oath argument is one that he and Belanger have been peddling for years. The meaning of "person" is also a perennial. I've sat through numerous court hearings where Freemen have argued this in vain. I listened to the oath on demand one just a few weeks ago at Master Gee's hearing.

This factum is impressively well prepared, quite professional. I bought a bunch of his books at the Jean-Serge Brisson seminar;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10201

I said in my write-up of the seminar

One of the available books was what must have been Dave's major offering, a massive $75 tome called "The Criminal Charging Procedure" described as "An analysis of the procedures for laying criminal charges on your own - with emphasis on charging government officials who break the law. Give 'em a fair trial.....then.....throw away the Key!!!".

Well I also coughed up $75 for "The Criminal Charging Procedure" and, like Dave's Supreme Court factum, very professionally done. The man does his research.

While some of his sources in the factum are somewhat flaky he does actually cite his sources. A rarity amongst Freeman types who like arguments but not doing the work of sourcing them.

Sadly for we David-Kevin fans the Supreme Court decided not to accept his appeal;

Decision on the application for leave to appeal, LeB F Cro, The applicant’s request for permission to present oral argument is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA38277, 2011 BCCA 99, dated April 5, 2011, is dismissed without costs.

However there is one hint in the dismissal that indicates the court was impressed by his arguments. It was dismissed without costs being imposed on him as the losing party. I've read a lot of SCC leave to appeal dismissals and very few are given on a "without cost" basis.

[nebuer]

I must admit I quite like Lindsay - he argues (albeit wrongly) for what he believes in. I was curious to see if he had been allowed to act as an agent post-meads. To my surprise, he's still appearing in court.

The most recent case was Meikle (Re), 2015 BCSC 1768 (CanLII): http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... c1768.html

He appeared as plain "Dave"...

Appearance of David Lindsay at Counsel Table

[5] Before discussing the merits of the application, on the second day of this hearing, I noted the presence of David Lindsay sitting at counsel table. When I asked the Bankrupt to introduce the person sitting at counsel table he introduced him as “that’s just my friend Dave who is here to help me”.

[6] The court was aware of who his friend “Dave” was. “Dave” or David Lindsay has been the subject of many court orders in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. The issue of whether David Lindsay could sit at counsel table or represent the Bankrupt has been raised in a number of court proceedings including some of the Bankrupt’s court proceedings both in Provincial Court and in Supreme Court.

Looks like he must be known by face in the courts these days. Maybe he turned up on Day Two (rather than the beginning) to make it harder to object to him. His internet TV appearances must have made him easier to recognise. The result, of course, was predictable:

[9] When I excluded Mr. Lindsay from counsel table, the Bankrupt sought an adjournment of the hearing which I denied. The Bankrupt was well aware of the risk of bringing David Lindsay to counsel table given the number of times both the Provincial Court and Supreme Court have refused to allow him to act as agent or represent individuals in their courts. The Bankrupt is a very capable self‑represented litigant who, in my view, conducted an effective cross‑examination of the representative from CRA on his own and who provided the voluminous written submissions which were well researched and written. In my view, he was not prejudiced by the absence of Mr. Lindsay at counsel table. It is quite possible that Mr. Lindsay wrote the submissions in any event and the Bankrupt was advised that he could consult with Mr. Lindsay during the breaks.

There is a more surprising recent case, where "Dave" was allowed to act as an agent. Here's R. v. Anderson, 2014 BCSC 2002 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/gkkbp

[5] Over the objections of Crown counsel, but with leave of the Court, Ms. Anderson has also had considerable assistance from her friend David Lindsay. Mr. Lindsay prepared three volumes of materials upon which Ms. Anderson based her submissions. Mr. Lindsay and Ms. Anderson evidently subscribe to the same legal theories, notably as it pertains to the Canadian system of taxation. Its practitioners take steps they say allow them to characterise their individual identity before the law as a “natural person”, or as a “private person”, or, as Ms. Anderson’s materials refer to her, as a “private woman commonly known as Debbie”. Their views have led the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) and other government bodies to characterise them as “tax-protestors”. Subscribers to this theory - commonly known as the natural person legal theory - seek to organize their financial affairs to evade government taxation. Multiple cases in British Columbia and other jurisdictions have roundly rejected the natural person legal theory: see Porisky; R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII); R. v. Bruno, 2002 BCCA 348 (CanLII); R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356 (CanLII); R. v. McCartie, 2012 BCSC 928 (CanLII); Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII); R. v. Siggelkow, 2014 ABQB 101. In Porisky, Myers J. found that the materials published by the group that Ms. Anderson was associated with, the Paradigm Education Group, effectively counsel tax evasion. While Porisky was overturned by the Court of Appeal, it was solely on the issue of whether the accused was wrongfully denied a jury trial. None of the other conclusions reached in the trial decision were disturbed.

They did know who he was though. But for some reason, despite being banned from doing so, he managed to run a lot of arguments that had been tried before:

[6] Although the leave given for Mr. Lindsay to assist Ms. Anderson excluded the expounding of “natural person” theories rejected in other cases, considerable portions of the materials he presented were nonetheless devoted to that subject. Ms. Anderson relied on 86 cases in argument, which far exceeds what is reasonably necessary to address the issues. I have read the materials most conducive to her position on the issues she has raised, but there is no advantage in recounting all the (often repetitive) arguments that she made, particularly those portions that do not advance any recognizable legal concepts.

Asides that, it seems that Dave has been relatively quiet. Almost a shame...

[Burnaby49]

I posted about Lindsay attempting to assist Debbie Anderson here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747

I'd read the Meikle case and I thought I posted it but apparently not.

[nebuer]

Meikle sounded more fun in a way. Its a shame that a thread on someone sophisticated like Lindsay attracts a lot less posts on here than some of the more duller OPCA litigants.

[Burnaby49]

Meikle sounded more fun in a way. Its a shame that a thread on someone sophisticated like Lindsay attracts a lot less posts on here than some of the more duller OPCA litigants.

If you want Meikle on Quatloos start a new discussion.

[nebuer]

Meikle sounded more fun in a way. Its a shame that a thread on someone sophisticated like Lindsay attracts a lot less posts on here than some of the more duller OPCA litigants.

If you want Meikle on Quatloos start a new discussion.

Oh - I just mean't the case itself as it related to Lindsay, not Meikle personally...

[Burnaby49]

You want some more Lindsay? David Kevin Lindsay got a nice little write-up on the Anti-Racist Canada blog. Here you go;

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/20 ... .html#more

Quatloos even gets a mention!

[nebuer]

Thanks. Was an interesting read - although they got the wrong person in the obituary they linked (I think).

It's a shame that Mowe's tales never got anywhere near the planned 32 mark...

[friendofafriend]

Re: David Lindsay's associations with Canadian neo-Nazi movement. Burnaby49's post on Nov 28 links to another website where Lindsay turns up supporting Arthur Topham, convicted criminal/hater of Jews and shows Lindsay hanging with Paul Fromm who has a radio show with the KKK, etc, etc. There's more, but for now here's a pamphlet where Lindsay is working with Tomasz Winnicki, hater of Jews in London, ON back in 2005:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/s7ogo ... indsay.pdf

Winnicki's Internet hate propaganda was so bad that the Federal Court issued an injunction to stop him and jailed him when he told them to "fak off" (literally). He now has a permanent injunction to stop posting racist hate propaganda:

Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Winnicki, [2006] 3 FCR 446, 2005 FC 1493 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1m0lk>
Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Winnicki, 2006 FC 873 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1nz75>
Human rights decision, 2006 CHRT 20 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1n2j9>

For those in the Quatloos community who indicate they think Lindsay is some form of otherwise respectable cowboy.

[nebuer]

That point could be made about any Guru. The reality is that some weird and not so wonderful people will turn up at these events; that is the nature of them after all. There is no evidence that Lindsay agrees with them: maybe like a good lawyer, he helps anyone he sees as in need, irrespective of their background.

So I'm still a fan. He's intelligent and sincere. A true activist. Misguided perhaps, but certainly a man of integrity, at least when you compare him to many other people who simply let the world roll by.

[Burnaby49]

On a whim I just checked on my favorite Detaxer. David Kevin Lindsay has added two more court failures to his rolls of triumph!

Penticton Law Courts, August 2, 2016
73474472 - Guilty of driving without a licence, fine $317
83780968 - Guilty of cycling without a bicycle helmet, fine $33

[The Observer]

David Kevin Lindsay has added two more court failures to his rolls of triumph!

Incorrect, sir. These are not failures but just more proof of the corruption and tyranny of the judicial system.

[Jeffrey]

So how'd that combo happen? He got caught driving, car gets towed so he rides away on a bike without a helmet and gets another ticket?

[Burnaby49]

So how'd that combo happen? He got caught driving, car gets towed so he rides away on a bike without a helmet and gets another ticket?

I don't have details but it sounds about right. I think he's been nabbed for both offenses in the past but can't recall.

[ArthurWankspittle]

83780968 - Guilty of cycling without a bicycle helmet, fine $33

Sticking it to the man, yeah baby!
Didn't one of our favorite SovCits build his online reputation from something similar, like riding without a light? Can't remember his name, but most of you will recall his war-cry "Let the record show AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGG"

[Hanslune]

83780968 - Guilty of cycling without a bicycle helmet, fine $33

Sticking it to the man, yeah baby!
Didn't one of our favorite SovCits build his online reputation from something similar, like riding without a light? Can't remember his name, but most of you will recall his war-cry "Let the record show AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGG"

For 'fighting the man' I've been encourage greatly by this lady who I've met. On her relentless campaign to bring nudity to cycling and skateboarding.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ss ... e_law.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Moss_(activist)

[ArthurWankspittle]

For 'fighting the man' I've been encourage greatly by this lady who I've met. On her relentless campaign to bring nudity to cycling and skateboarding.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ss ... e_law.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Moss_(activist)

I am bitterly disappointed there are no pictures in those links.

(Don't post any - I was being sarcastic.)