fwd: Criminals on the Bench
Justice Verhooofen (sic) screws Freedom – following on the heels of Judge Sinclair
Justice Ver-hoooof-en supports and applies Judicial Terrorism
Justice Verhoeven unlawfully has re-wrote and re-defined established Canadian law. Making corrupt law from the Bench - now known as:
"Canadian Junk law"
I had hoped to write an article in a better frame of mind, and indeed a more positive article, but please accept my apologies if a bit of Scottish anger seems to flow from a judgment that, even with my knowledge of the corruption, surprised me.
I sat for the past 2 months wondering, not if they would screw us on the “person” and Coronation Oath issues, which I somewhat saw coming, (though continuing to hope otherwise), but how they would screw me on trial Judge Sinclair’s admission that at least 2 other people interfered with the independence of the judiciary by ordering him to terminate the trial prematurely.
Yesterday, after another hour in jail, I found out how.
Verhooofen, an employment law lawyer (sure, he knows constitutional, criminal and taxation law?? – then he claims there should be a presumption that all judges know all the law – which he admittedly has never studied nor researched) simply ruled that: “There is no basis for the suggestion that in so doing he was improperly influenced by anyone.” Whoooaa. Whether or not this was “improper” is of no relevance – it is the interference itself and alone that the SCC held is a violation of the law. Verhooofen also said that that my position on this matter was “without any foundation” because Sinclair failed to say who it was that gave the orders! Isn’t that how extortion works – no one being extorted upon is going to reveal who is doing the extorting for fear of obvious results.
Then Ver-hooof-en the SOB said that the admission by Sinclair that “those higher up the food chain” was not intended literally – who is Verhooofen to say how the judge intended this to be interpreted - especially with nothing quoted to support him? How does he know this – did he call Sinclair and ask him off the record? The fact is the words speak for themselves - at least two other people ordered Sinclair to terminate the trial after he had promised at the previous hearing to hear my constitutional issues and then never did. This is a real cover up by another criminal judge
But, disappointing as this is, should we expect anything less?
I will not, however, give in. My leave application is already done and will be filed within 30 days. I will take this to the Court of Appeal and the SCC if necessary.
Verhoofen did indicate in his reasons what I and many others have been saying all along – that they will never let us win because of the effects of our position. This was truly amazing – read this quote:
“If accepted, Mr. Lindsay’s arguments would call into question the legitimacy and authority of Canada’s constitution and government including its courts. I could be without authority to make the very decisions sought by Mr. Lindsay on this appeal.”
In short, as I directly told him, no judge can hear this matter because they would all be out of a job and I can never obtain a fair and impartial hearing. Only a jury can so do. This after Sinclair refused to permit me to put evidence on the record of how the corrupt usury monetary system works to illustrate that the system will not collapse and that income tax is not required to run the country. Now Verhoofen claims that because if income tax is removed, the system will collapse. Therefore the law of necessity kicks in and they simply will not permit this. Yet in the Manitoba Language Reference Case, the Man. Court of Queen’s Bench, Kopstein J. held, confirmed by the SCC, that all laws of Manitoba were void for failure to translate into French. He then said that they must remain in effect for 2 years to permit translation.
So indeed, the income tax act could be declared unlawful, but, if necessary (and I don’t agree that it is), could remain for 1 year to permit Parliament to begin to issue its own monetary and credit needs interest free and without the need for taxation at all. I could live with this temporary illegality.
Despite my dozens of authorities including from Justice Dowdall K.C. where he admits that a “person” and a man are indeed separate and distinct, Verhooofen simply agreed with the trial judge and refused to go into any detailed analysis of my supporting material – he simply ignored all of it under the guise that I was re-arguing my trial position, as opposed to showing where Sinclair erred at law. My material is so detailed, accurate and correct, that neither Verhooofen nor Sinclair are able to address it by showing where I erred – they simply claim that a “person” is a man and will not look at anything else.
Ver-hoof-en applied what is known as the "modern principle" where words are given their general meaning. However this only came into effect in 1984 - the ITA in 1948. It is a judicially created 'law' and has no retroactivity. Further, it only applies where the word is not a technical term or one used in the vernacular of a particular trade. For example - the word 'body' in law means an artificial person. The word 'chose' in law means a type of action - not a choice as used in regular parlance. I could go on but the point is made and I am correct that this did not apply, especially after the authorities I had which admitted that a "person" is a term of law.
All Verhooofen could claim was that a “person” included a man. But it is more than that – a “person” surely is a man – but it is a man with the capacity (power) for rights and duties. That is the legal definition for 1000 years and I had the judicial proof to support me. Moreover, all the material I have today, and I do mean all, was never before the Court in Canadian history anywhere – including in the Kennedy case Verhooofen references because I was Tom’s agent in that case.
Verhooofen then went on to agree that a comment that was off the cuff, (obiter per incuriam – a comment on something not before the court and which is not binding) so to speak by a Court of Appeal justice, without any supporting arguments and which was not even before that Court, was still binding upon him and he was going to follow it.
Anyway, it was a massive cover up including a Crown Prosecutor who admitted that he had no authorities nor law to counter my position – NONE. Clearly Burnett the prosecutor was given insider information not to put any effort into this case because the judiciary would take care of it.
All of this to say nothing about the willful misquotes and errors of fact which the judges do on purpose to ensure that no one can appeal on issues of fact to a higher court. Only issues of law. That’s fine – I’ll word it correctly.
Verhoofen quoted the test required to have appeals granted. I’m wholly familiar with this test and met it. Verhooofen applied a much too strict a standard on this appeal. He begins by re-defining the word legal term “person”, to use a legal term in ordinary language, and then of course saying there was lots of evidence that I was a “person”. He also claims I incriminated myself in my affidavits but fails to state where I did so. The trial judge only claimed that I evidenced I reside in Canada, which is bullshit too as I expressly said I “live in the geographical area known as British Columbia” and further evidenced expressly that I do not “reside” in Canada nor anywhere else. It is no longer sufficient to ‘read in’ law, now the judges are ‘reading in’ evidence that didn’t exist.
On the Coronation Oath issue. Verhooofen said that he does not have to enforce the Oath of the Queen, even though the Ontario Court of Appeal said it is part of our Constitution. He claims it is “non-justiciable” however that was in relation to an application by someone attempting to change the Constitution – that was why it was non-justiciable. I am simply demanding that the Constitution be upheld and applied – and he refused to do this. I have never heard of any part of our Constitution as being not applicable to be relied upon by the people – especially the very foundation for which it began.
If the Queen’s oath is not enforced or enforceable, then neither can any alleged Oath of Allegiance of the people to the Queen.
On the issue of the fact that the Queen swore out an “illegal” oath – Verhoeven remained conspicuously silent. Not a word said.
It is amazing, for those who have seen my presentation and the incredible amount of supporting law that I have, that this judge simply refused to apply or even quote any of it. That the Crown had no law to support him clearly illustrates that the justice was on a witch hunt to strike down and change the fundamental law of this land.
Unfortunately, he also changed the sentencing. Now instead of having to pay a $5 000 fine by November 2012, I have 90 days!!! Yeah, money sure grows on trees doesn’t it. Likely, as per usual policy, the Crown won’t object to this while under appeal.
The Crown had another charge laid for failing to comply with the original court order to file from the trial judge about 2 months ago. Verhooofen now ordered me to file in 60 days. Thus the present warrant that has been outstanding for 40 days or so is abandoned and once I have not filed again in 60 days, the Crown will lay another charge, try to serve me, claim evasion of service, and seek another warrant for my arrest. Here we go again.
Then they will prosecute again for refusing to succumb to judicial terrorism.
Anyway, enough venting for now. Another appeal is being filed and we will go from here. As we are advocating in our Person Solution Tour Part 2 – Cooperative Activist Resistance – the only solution will be massive civil refusal to comply with their bullshit and unconstitutional laws. That is the only solution – and it is peaceful. When we truly know the law – all their fabrications and word magic falls upon deaf ears.
Success has been delayed – but it is still to come.
Thanks so much to all those who came out today to watch the corruption and support me, including those who came as far away as Vancouver.
We even had a little freedom activist come with pappy to learn first hand what his future holds if we are not successful. His future, as with your children, will rest on a refusal to support corruption – not by ongoing discussions and talk. But by action – and the only action is to stop filing en masse.
Thanks to Gord Watson who recently noted in his email:
“Junk science is defined as ‘ ... when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda.’ ”
Verhooofen’s judgment is “junk law” – “when constitutional principles and laws are distorted, risk is exaggerated and the science of law adapted and warped by politics and judges, and ideology to serve another agenda.”
In freedom I remain and will remain!
David-Kevin: Lindsay
Support US, not THEM!
I'd also like to assist with the cost of research, court costs and commitment to freedom. Here is my donation of $_______.
As with all endeavours of this magnitude, we gratefully rely upon donations to cover our costs. The Court of Appeal is extremely expensive due to the volume of copying involved. Legal costs even on your own are extremely expensive. All assistance would be very much appreciated and can be sent to either:
2929 Coleman St., Penticton, B.C., V2N 7C9, or
Suite 432 113-437 Martin St. Penticton, B.C. V2A 5L1
Cash or money order/cheque is fine.
Thank you.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
