roy wrote:

Roy, I couldn't help notice that you never explain to the readers what
these cases are really all about. Is it because to do so would expose
the racket you call law? That to do so would expose you as being nothing
but a stupid roman wannabe bent on enslaving the people?

Readers, lets have a look at what this fear mongering parasite is trying
to peddle on you shall we.

Citation: R. v. Lindsay - Excerpt Reasons for Ruling

And so we have TWO persons ACTING on both sides of a legal dispute. The
Queen (with a legal status of CORPORATION) and Lindsay (a legal identity
ESTABLISHED by the CORPORATION). It is to note here that the legal term
"Queen" represents a "body politic" that is attached to a body natural
and that it is this "body politic" that contains the office and government.

As found at McMaster University

The Crown as Corporation
Frederic Maitland

17 Law Quarterly Review 131-46 (1901)

"The king has two capacities, for he has two bodies, the one whereof is
a body natural... the other is a body politic, and the members thereof
are his subjects, and he and his subjects together compose the
corporation, as Southcote said, and he is incorporated with them and
they with him, and he is the head and they are the members, and he has
the sole government of them. (Plowden, p. 234.)"
Case of the Duchy of Lancaster (1561), cited in Maitland, supra note 12,
at 134

"[T]he [king] has a body natural adorned and invested with the estate
and dignity royal, and he has not a body natural distinct and divided by
itself from the office and dignity royal, but a body natural and a body
politic together indivisible, and these two bodies are incorporated in
one person and make one body and not divers, that is,
the body corporate in the body natural et e contra the body natural in
the body corporate. So that the body natural by the conjunction of the
body politic to it (which body politic contains the office, government
and majesty royal) is magnified and by the said consolidation hath in it
the body politic."

Date: 20050214 2005 BCPC 0084 File No: 59021-1 Registry: Kelowna IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

The stage where the ACTING is done is in a court (itself a corporation
along with its own officers) established by its parent corporation known
as the Province of British Columbia. On this particular stage, the
characters that are ACTED out can include a "judge", a "prosecutor", a
"plaintiff", a "defendant", a "clerk" and so on.

Lets recap. We have a LEGAL dispute between a CORPORATION (invisible
body) and a LEGAL IDENTITY (established by the CORPORATION) argued
within a CORPORATION (invisible body) established by its parent
CORPORATION (invisible body).

It is without a doubt that the setting for the ACTING is within the

For a man to enter the fictitious realm of a corporation, an invisible
body, a man has to put on a "mask" (legal identity) in order to become
an "actor" (natural person) acting out (performing) certain characters
(taxpayer, deputy,etc). The "mask" (legal identity) which represents an
"actor within an act", is given the same characteristics as the man
himself and is said to be a "portrait" of him. It even "looks" like the
man through the use of an icon (picture). When a government, a
an "entity" that has no existence outside of the FICTITIOUS REALM,
creates an ACT in order to command, its SUBJECTS that it will COMMAND
cannot or NEVER NEVER NEVER can be a "man" can only command
PERSONS, entities within its FICTITIOUS REALM. If a "man" however puts
on a legal mask (legal identity), he thus becomes an "actor" (natural
person) within the ACTS of the CORPORATION. As such he is LIABLE for the

A "person", in any statute is a fictional character or a "member" of a
corporation (artificial person). It is derived directly from the latin
word "persona", meaning a mask or the role played by an actor.

"The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ‘Person, in its
primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These
pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast
amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard by
all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor was
enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he was
to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission of
his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox personabat,
when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask which
facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was afterwards
applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken to play,
because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and character of him
who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was his own portrait.
It is in this last sense of personage, or of the part which an
individual plays, that the word persona is employed in jurisprudence, in
opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a person, we only
consider the state of the man, the part he plays in society, abstractly,
without considering the individual". 1

Bouvier’s Institutes, note 1.
"A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and
duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance
of which the rights and duties are attributes." - Pollack, First
Treatise on Jurisprudence, quoted in Black's Law Dictionary (4th Rev.
Ed., 1968), p. 1300.
Institutes of American Law, Volume I, BOOK I, - OF PERSONS, by John
Bouvier. 1854.

"136. Persons are divided into natural and artificial These will be
considered separately.


137. Men, women and children, who are called natural persons: but in
another sense, a person is meant the part which a man plays in society.
In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. (a) Any human
being is a man, (b) whether he be a member of society or not, whatever
may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, etc. A person
is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all
the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties
which it imposes."

by John Bouvier

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called
natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous
terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or
not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex,
&c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in
society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him,
and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

A "natural person" is a LEGAL EXISTENCE that can be SUSPENDED or MERGED
into that of ANOTHER. It is a legal existence needed in order to PERFORM
"everything". It is a PERSONA and NOT a creation of God. Indeed, a man's
"person" is but a PERSONA "adapted" to the AGE and CHARACTER of him and
thus said to be a PORTRAIT of him. Consistent with the laws of
coverture, a man's PERSON denotes a PERSONA in an ACT or PERFORMANCE. A
"natural person" is NOT a man as God created him, it is but a mere

Criminal Division

Criminal? What is the "crime"?

REGINA v. DAVID KEVIN LINDSAY, also known as DAVID-KEVIN: LINDSAY EXCERPT FROM PROCEEDINGS ORAL REASONS FOR RULING ON JURISDICTION AND APPREHENSION OF BIAS OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. G. SINCLAIR Counsel for the Federal Crown: C. E. Burnett Appearing on his own behalf: D. K. Lindsay Place of Hearing: Kelowna, B.C. Date of Hearing: February 14, 2005 Date of Judgment: February 14, 2005 [1] THE COURT: One David Kevin Lindsay is charged with five counts of contravening Section 238(1) of the Income Tax Act. Put succinctly, those are counts of failing to provide income tax returns for the years ended December 31, 1997 through December 31, 2001.

The so-called "crime" ladies and gentlemen is a PERFORMANCE
INFRACTION...FAILING TO PROVIDE (income tax returns). Now understand
what this means people, it is considered a CRIME if you do not PERFORM
as is MANDATED of your PERSON within an ACT. Welcome to the dictatorial
enslaving ROMAN law of PERSONS.

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

The "judge" (a corporate officer), whose duty is to serve and protect
the body politic, is "given" AUTHORITY (jurisdiction) to hold the
PERFORMANCE of PERSON in judgement by "summary court".

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


A: At law, Canadians are mere SUBJECTS of the QUEEN, INCORPORATED into a
ROMAN STYLE corporation.

Canada is a CORPORATION along with its corporate structure which
and files, etc...etc... Canada, a "monarchy", is a body politic and
corporate whose "government" denotes a SINGLE "person" (monarch) who is
intrusted with the EXECUTION of the LAWS, the management of its REVENUE,
and the COMMAND of its ARMY. This "person" which denotes the
"government" is a CORPORATION also known as the "Queen/King"- the
SOVEREIGN of the body politic and corporate who holds EXECUTIVE POWER.
Her Majesty the Queen Liz II IS THE GOVERNMENT. She rules by divine
right and is the SOVEREIGN of and over "Canada". Again, all Canadians"
are SUBJECTS of the sovereign. The constitution which is a charter of
incorporation is simply used to LIMIT her (government) powers within the
body politic and corporate - the CORPORATION known as "Canada". The
monarch (Queen regnant) of this body politic and corporate (Canada) is
on the "Government of Canada" on BEHALF and in the NAME of the SOVEREIGN
(monarch) and hence is the de facto CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. As such,
the GOVERNOR GENERAL has the POWER to SUSPEND or DISSOLVE "parliament".
Remember, this POWER exists REGARDLESS of who the "citizens" elect to
hold OFFICES within "parliament" (yet another CORPORATION).

B: We are dealing with a CORPORATION (body politic). The CORPORATE BODY
is but an ideal, intangible, invisible, immutable PERSON and as such can
ONLY act through agents. This BODY has NO physical form whatsoever as it
is but a mere concept, a construct of the mind, a FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION.

C: A "citizen" has no rights outside of the Rule and Codes of Crown
(corporation) "law". The "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" are simply
rights or better yet, privileges entitled to the "subjects" within the
CORPORATION and like any roman corporation, its "government" is
notwithstanding to this charter.

D: We are dealing with the dictatorial enslaving ROMAN law of PERSONS.

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

The "judge" (a corporate officer), whose duty is to serve and protect
the body politic, is "given" (duly appointed) AUTHORITY (jurisdiction)
to hold the PERFORMANCE of PERSON in judgement by "summary court".

[5] The Honourable Mr. Justice Wilson, he being the same distinguished jurist who wrote A Book for Judges, which has been cited to me, decided a case in 1954 called Re. Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd. It dealt with whether a trial judge should follow judgments of brother judges. The learned Mr. Justice Wilson basically had this to say: Where a provincial Court of Appeal, acting in accordance with its right and duty in such a case, overrules a previous decision that is found to be wrong, it settles the law by its overruling opinion. But a trial Judge who differs from another trial Judge of the same Court does not settle but rather unsettles the law. Hence one trial Judge should not go against the judgment of another unless (1) subsequent decisions have affected the validity of the impugned judgment; or (2) it is demonstrated that some binding authority in case law, or some relevant statute was not considered; or (3) the impugned judgment was not a considered one, as where the exigencies of the trial required an immediate decision without opportunity to consult authority. If none of these conditions exist, a trial Judge should follow the decisions of his brother Judges, leaving it to the Court of Appeal to overrule them if they are wrong.

The "judge" (a corporate officer), whose duty is to serve and protect
the body politic and is "given" (duly appointed) AUTHORITY
(jurisdiction) to hold the PERFORMANCE of PERSON in judgement by
"summary court" can be corrected.

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

Ouch. He seems to have touched a nerve! lol

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

Now who would bite the hand that feeds them?

[8] That, with respect, is just not so. The only influence the Minister has over me is in my capacity as a citizen of Canada.

Yes indeed lol. To be considered a "citizen" of the CORPORATION known as
"Canada" is to be considered INCORPORATED into a ROMAN STYLE
corporation. And it is by the INCORPORATION into the BODY POLITIC that
the word "person" is APPLIED to a man known as a NATURAL PERSON (legal
entity that represents a man as an ACTOR within ACTS of the CORPORATE
ENTITY) denoting a RANK HELD within the BODY POLITIC with THAT RANK
(capacity) determining the rights ENTITLED and duties IMPOSED. For
example, such a DUTY imposed to the rank of MAJOR(it) is the paying of
INCOME TAX. The RANK of "Minor" does not have such an imposition.

As a resident (holder of benefices) and a taxpayer, the judge is LIABLE
for the PERFORMANCE of his PERSON as is MANDATED by the income tax ACT
(file a return) and is indeed under the "influence" of the MINISTER
administering the ACT.

He or she has absolutely no influence over me in my judicial capacity. That is so with regard to every aspect of my job. The Attorney General, either federal or provincial, the chief of police, the mayor, whoever, cannot tell me how to do my job. He or she cannot phone me or write me about a particular case or an issue in general. I choose to pay taxes

Lie. Our "brother" chooses NOTHING. The IMPOSITION is not by CHOICE.

, just like I choose not to drive drunk, not to rob banks, not to distribute mind altering drugs and not to assault or kill people, to name a few. I choose not to do the things I have mentioned, because it is morally wrong to endanger other motorists and pedestrians by driving drunk, to take other people's money, to feed the addictions of the less fortunate or to take another life. Does that mean that I cannot hear the case against an alleged drunk driver, thief, drug trafficker or killer? No, it does not. Those people get the benefit of every defence and of every reasonable doubt. If in the end the case has not been proved to my satisfaction, that person, no matter what I may think of him or her, gets acquitted and walks out of court a free person. Does it mean I am going to bend over backwards to convict any such person because I am afraid the chief of police might have his or her officers out looking at what I do or watching me driving, to arrest me or charge me with some real or imagined offence? Am I concerned that the Attorney General is going to make life hell for me because I have acquitted someone in a high profile case that he as the chief law enforcement officer of the province wanted to see convicted? No, because they cannot do that. I am independent. [9] Mr. Lindsay argues that I must look at things from his perspective, that is, to consider his rights, and I do consider his rights as I consider the rights of every accused person that comes before me. However, I must also consider responsibilities. Far too many people these days come to the table pounding it and stressing their rights while forgetting or putting aside their corresponding responsibilities.

The attachment of "person" status to a man or woman makes them subject
to the dictatorial enslaving roman law of "persons". They are held
LIABLE for the PERFORMANCE of their PERSONS as is DICTATED by the
MUNICIPAL laws of a CORPORATION, common and civil law being mere SUBSETS
of this corporate MUNICIPAL law. Not only does this CORPORATE MUNICIPAL
LAW command the rights entitled, it also commands the "corresponding
responsibilities" that is, the DUTIES IMPOSED.

And so, if the CORPORATION (body politic) determines that a person shall
render 90% of its wages to the CORPORATION in the form of INCOME TAX, a
man shall ACT as is DICTATED of his PERSON or GO TO JAIL. Indeed,
PERFORMANCE INFRACTIONS are considered a CRIME in this enslaving system.

Life, I believe, should be approached with a sense of responsibility, not a sense of right.
What rights and responsibilities is he talking about again? Ah yes, the
a CORPORATION, the dictatorial enslaving ROMAN LAW of PERSONS as so adopted.


A Dictionary and Compendium of American and English Jurisprudence

Compiled and written by attorney William C. Anderson and published in
Chicago by T. H. Flood and Company, Law Publishers, in 1893.

Municipal law. The rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power
in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong;
also, the laws of a locality. 1 Bl. Com. 44; 15 Barb. 114. Defines the
just and necessary limits of natural liberty. 1 Shars. Bl. Com. 127. A
city ordinance is not a law in this sense.

Unwritten law. The municipal laws of England are: (1) the unwritten or
common law, which includes customs, general and particular, and
particular laws. General customs, or the common law properly so called,
are founded on immemorial universal usage, whereof judicial decisions
are the evidence. Particular laws are such as, by special custom, are
adopted and used only in particular courts, and under the control of the
common and statute laws; namely, the Roman civil and Canon [church] laws.

Written or statute law. The municipal laws of England are: (2) the
written or statute law; being acts of legislative bodies, to only supply
what is defective, or to amend only what is amiss, in the unwritten
laws. 1 Bl. Com. 63-91, xxiv. See Statute.
Sir William Blackstone, 1765,

"Now, as municipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is
right, and prohibiting what is wrong; or, as Cicero, and after him our
Bracton, has expressed it, janctio jufta, jubens bonefta et prohibits
contrary; it follow, that the primary and principal objects of the law
are RIGHTS, and WRONGS."

"Now the rights of persons that are commanded to be observed by the
municipal law are to two sorts; first, such as are due from every
citizen, which are usually called civil duties; and, secondly, such as
belong to him, which is the more popular acceptation of rights or jura."
[10] It is argued lastly that I do not know the law and therefore cannot properly judge this case. Because, Mr. Lindsay says, I do not prepare and file my own tax returns, I probably do not know the Income Tax Act. I find no merit in that argument. I admit that I do not know the Income Tax Act, chapter and verse. I fear that precious few people do. That has little or nothing and I find nothing to do with my ability to interpret a section or sections of the Income Tax Act and to apply it to a set of facts. I find no real likelihood of bias here.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse even though most people are in fact
ignorant. Put another way, not knowing how to PERFORM is no excuse even
though most people don't know how they are to PERFORM within ACTS.

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

The ACTING judge, a high ranking CORPORATE OFFICER, has a DUTY to
maintain the "good order and discipline" of the BODY POLITIC (the
amorphous entity also known as a CORPORATION) by holding the PERFORMANCE

Supreme Court of Canada

stoffman v. vancouver general hospital

"In short, McIntyre J. was of the view that the references in s. 32(1)
to the "government of Canada" and the "government of each province"
could not be interpreted as bringing within the ambit of the Charter the
whole of that amorphous entity which in contemporary political theory
might be thought of as "the state". Instead, they were to be interpreted
as references to what has traditionally been thought of as the
institutions of government -- those bodies and offices upon which the
Constitution confers power to make and enforce laws generally applicable
across the body politic."
Supreme Court of Canada

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union

"One need only think of the history of social stagnation in Eastern
Europe and of the role played in its development and preservation by
officially established "free" trade unions, peace movements and cultural
organizations to appreciate the destructive effect forced association
can have upon the body politic".
The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III, p.358

"Citizenship implies political status. It may or may not confer suffrage
or any other particular incident, but it does imply incorporation into
the body politic."

[12] I am independent. I can decide the case. (EXCERPT CONCLUDED)

He can only decide cases that involve fictitious human PERSONS.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

FICTI'TIOUS, a. [L. fictifius, from fingo, to feign.]

1. Feigned; imaginary; not real.

The human persons are as fictitious as the airy ones.

Welcome to "Canada", the corporate taxslave plantation ruled and
regulated by the dictatorial enslaving ROMAN law of PERSONS, the