criminals on the bench by rob hay - justice verhoeven unlawfully re-wrote/re-defined canadian law...

8/7/2019 Criminals On The Bench by Rob Hay - Justice Verhoeven Unlawfully Re-Wrote/Re-Defined Canadian Law Making Co…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminals-on-the-bench-by-rob-hay-justice-verhoeven-unlawfully-re-wrotere-defined 1/7



Justice Verhooofen (sic) screws Freedom – following on

the heels of Judge Sinclair

Justice Ver-hoooof-en supportsand 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 employmentlaw 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 andimpartial 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.



{Neither will they look or identify the origin of the word person a simple white wash approach}

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 Verhooof en 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 referencesbecause 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.

Genesis 1:26-28:{And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them

have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over thecattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth uponthe earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God createdhe him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God

said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.}

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 w ith 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 asbeing 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

[email protected]

rob hay comments:

You can read Dave Lindsay Appeal Judgment via this link for further insight.

www.freedomfiles.org/david-06182010-Appeal-Judgment-Verhoeven.pdf

My contention is and always has been that they have no authority to Judge us by their laws. The Bible

tells us in Genesis 1:26-28 that we have dominion over all the earth and we are not things. The Court

system today are Masonic private based courts that use law as means to trick people into coming into

their court or system. We simply just write, Without Prejudice upon any document that they force us to

sign and refuse to give our name as a name is only hearsay and applies to things. We are not things. To

sign something one only needs to make a mark upon the signature line, such as an X. You see an X upon

all credit card slips and if you go for a loan the loan officer marks an X upon every line they want you to

sign a name too, meaning that they are the trustee for the money of the dead fiction you are signing for.

In simple terms you only have to ignore these people who pretend to have authority over you. If they

engage you it is for the purpose of getting you to bow to their authority or entering a contract withthem. Merely telling them up front you do not wish to contract with them is powerful way to stop them

as well. Using a little legal language and never say that you understand charges, to understand is to

stand for the charges being offered too you. There is no solution within the system because it is all

based on slavery. It is Lucifer’s system of slavery and you are being confronted with his minions. I talk a

great deal about the spiritual nature in my book, The Extortion System of the Ruling Elite if you like to

learn more.

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.freedomfiles.org/david-06182010-Appeal-Judgment-Verhoeven.pdf






A comment that shows again how the Courts are Private Courts and make use of their own system of

law that applies to things not to man created as male or female by God, I found interesting as well.

By another dave:

I predicted exactly this about a year and a half ago. What does anyone expect by relying on their

corporate and private constitution and it must be "private" because none of us had anything to do with

its being created and

passed.

Read s. 127 (1) "Disobeying order of court - Every* one who (*my insert: notice the two words used-

more on this below), without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justce or by a

person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the

payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law,

guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

About the usage of the two words "every one" this refers only to "things" and "everyone" refers to

people. But the main point being, that he doesn't have to pay anything because it is not deemed to be a

court order. I never paid the "court ordered" fine and in fact, put it in writing to the Prosecutor,immediately after trial, that even if I received the largest inheritance in the history of the planet, I would

never pay them one single cent of the fine. I never heard another word.

rob

www.freedomfiles.org

http://www.freedomfiles.org/



criminals on the bench by rob hay - justice verhoeven unlawfully re-wrote/re-defined canadian law...

Documents