The following original essay was submitted by the author on November 23, 2010 for publication on this blog. At the request of the author, it has been edited in terms of its content.
At the beginning of the decade the NASDAQ index fell down abruptly and the United States faced capital flight to other shelters. The National Treasurer, urged by the most famous economists of the country, decided to create another pole of attraction. He immediately saw that the construction industry was sensitive enough to changes in the stock exchange market and the real estate subsector was especially attractive.
The government began to promote all financial activities for everybody to get a house (it was at the beginning of Bush´s term). All financial organizations followed the lead: banks, mutual funds, retirement funds, private lending and so on. The result was fantastic: within a period of 18 months the stock market was back in its rails again and better than ever. The United States Treasurer and his financial advisors were so happy because demand is demand is demand is demand and the pulling system was working in excellent terms.
By this time everybody in the world wanted his fair share. All financial institutions around the world began to buy the American real estate portfolios; if they could not, they wanted to lend money to the industry to create more houses. The whole system was so beautiful and it was based on the backs of all the hard workers of the nation.
By 2006 the bubble began to crack: all those lending and borrowing to buy houses in America became weaker and weaker and weaker. The reason behind it was irresponsibility: house credits were given without due diligence. We cannot blame the average American citizen wanting to fulfill one of their most wanted dreams especially if the system was pushing all of them to borrow, take credits and mortgages to buy a house. This situation was out of proportion: there were several persons, each one of them buying more than one house at the same time.
Can we blame the real estate agents wanting to fulfill their portfolios or the goals that were given to them? Yes, in part because they were the front line, the ones that could prevent their customers from getting into financial trouble.
Can we blame the financial institution managers and stakeholders? Yes, greed was the one and only driving force behind all decisions in real estate although they knew there was not enough wealth to cover all mortgage payments. But ultimately, what really happened is that the bubble grew so fast that it was virtually impossible to put boundaries on it. At that time everything was a lemming race to the abyss. Americans began to stop paying their monthly mortgage payments; they realized that they were paying more than three times the real value of their houses. Financial institutions began to sell “toxic” real estate portfolios, that is, real estate accounts from dubious clients and customers; other institutions that borrowed millions to make quick profit began to falter in their payments. All cash flows began to break down in every level of the system and that affected the whole financial system of the world.
At the end of 2007 everything broke down. Nobody was paying and nobody believed anybody. Banks did not believe other banks, the central banks did not believe commercial ones, lending stopped and that stopped businesses. Now nobody was creating jobs and no one was spending money, because there were no businesses, companies went broke and people were dismissed so they couldn’t pay their mortgages. It was a vicious circle spiraling down.
By 2008 the major crisis in the world appeared, the financial system was collapsing and governments around the world had to intervene.
Federal governments had to put billions of dollars into the financial system in order for it to survive. That gave them a lot of liquidity but trust did not appear so the system had billions of dollars that weren’t moving the world’s economy because nobody believed anybody; in 2008 the great crisis reached the bottom. Europe was the most affected after USA and the developing countries
By 2009 Governmental officials and commercial institutions put together delicate plans to move the economy again. China led the way - its internal demand made it possible - and trade began to move the world´s economy. Asia and its neverending demand for goods and services began the recovery, some developing countries found a niche selling basic products to China and economies began to get healthier.
In 2010 things are not over; now nations are facing a huge problem. The reason is that all the money they injected into the financial system drained all their resources. They don´t have money for social projects, health projects, development projects and they will have to increase their income from…citizens.
Projections say that 2011 will be a difficult year; the effects of this crisis are still affecting governments. The Eurozone is collapsing, a number of American states are at the brink of bankruptcy, China is slowing down its growth pace and developing nations are facing social disruption.
Let us hope that we can build again healthy economies from responsibility, trust and hard work at every level of society. We need to trust the financial system and it has to be more responsible to the ones that really helped it to survive
I am a UsuryFree Creative,
I have opened my own time-bank,
Where I create and spend my own,
UFOH's (UsuryFree Official Hours).
With time-banking so decentralized,
I am now empowered financially,
As my time is backed by real capital.
I am learning how to use my abundance,
Of hours and minutes as a complement,
With the scarcity of dollars and cents,
Which is forever and always diminishing.
I remembered what I had learned,
I had been told: 'Pay usury NOT,'
And 'Become a UsuryFree Creative.'
So, I bravely created my own UFOH's,
And now I feel freed of economic bondage.
The way usuryfree creatives commonly feel.
I no longer sign and agree to pay usury,
Though family and friends still do.
I now make informed and different choices.
Previous mentoring to me was timely,
My debts of dollars and cents are ending,
And true prosperity is now in sight.
I know how to create and spend my own,
Hours and minutes for trading time.
My paper notes of time represent substance,
Backed by my honesty and integrity,
And, of course, they are usuryfree.
Now I'm trading and mentoring others,
Especially when I hear them say,
The interest on their debt is growing.
I tell them that interest is really usury,
And that all of the holy books forbid,
The exacting of usury on loans.
As I coach debtors who are ready to listen,
I hear others who are still indebted say,
It cannot succeed, the banks are too powerful.
It's true, most debtors feel disempowered,
And they are desperate with no idea,
That there is another way,
They trust only formal education,
Which neglects to teach the truth.
So why do debtors keep paying usury,
Knowing that it enslaves economically?
Simply because they are conditioned so.
Indeed, the reality of financial freedom,
Is being spread exponentially,
As time-traders learn how to evade usury.
Tell your friends and neighbours,
Tell your family and working colleagues.
Encourage them to become a time-trader,
Where one hour of basic time has universal value,
In time, it's zero hours and sixty minutes.
In U.S. Funds, it's 10 dollars and zero cents.
In Canadian Funds, it's 12 dollars and zero cents.
In labour, its value is basic, unskilled or student,
Equivalent in value to zero hours and sixty minutes.
Whatever your skills, trade or profession,
You earn hours and minutes in a value,
Equivalent to what you earn in dollars and cents.
Simply multiply 12 by a suitable multiple,
Matching the dollar value in the free market.
Make your business card more valuable too,
Make it worth at least five minutes time,
Valued at one dollar and zero cents.
When others experience financial pain,
They will agree that usury is evil and wrong.
Only then will they too will join with us.
By creating and spending UFOH's,
They will experience living usuryfree.
These are my initial thoughts,
And everyday, I'm learning more.
I'm also trusting that the youth will create
The songs to help network the message.
I wish that everyone could experience,
The reality of usuryfree living immediately,
Especially Fast Freddy who is still alive,
Because he made it to the bowl on time.
Citation: R. v. David Lindsay (David-Kevin: Lindsay), 2006 BCCA 150
Date: 20060328 Docket: CA032693
David Lindsay (David-Kevin: Lindsay)
Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury The Honourable Mr. Justice Hall The Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick
David Lindsay (David-Kevin: Lindsay) Acting on his own behalf
J. Hyman Counsel for the Respondent
Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia March 13, 2006
Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia March 28, 2006
Written Reasons by: The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury
Concurred in by: The Honourable Justice Hall The Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick
Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Newbury:
 Mr. Lindsay appeals the dismissal by the Chambers judge below, Mr. Justice Barrow, of an application for orders in the nature of prohibition and certiorari in respect of five charges laid against “David Kevin Lindsay (David-Kevin: Lindsay)” under s. 238(1) of the Income Tax Act for allegedly failing to file income tax returns. Mr. Lindsay claims that an incident which took place in Provincial Court on March 2, 2004 resulted in the Provincial Court’s “loss of jurisdiction” over him on these charges. Since the reasons of Barrow J. (indexed as 2005 BCSC 484) contain a fairly detailed description of the incident, I will describe it only briefly.
The Question of Identity
 At the outset, however, I should note a unique, or at least unusual, feature of this case – Mr. Lindsay’s assertion that he is neither “a person” for income tax purposes nor “the person” charged with the income tax offences. When the Crown’s Information setting out the charges and the Summons were left at his house, he purported to refuse them and returned the Information and Summons to the Justice of the Peace marked “Void. Refused and Returned for Fraud, David-Kevin: Lindsay”. (A copy of his letter to the Justice of the Peace dated December 22, 2003, is unfortunately obscured in the Appeal Book, but that letter and Mr. Lindsay’s affidavit leave no doubt that Mr. Lindsay received the Information and Summons.) Mr. Lindsay also wrote on the documents:
I, David-Kevin: Lindsay, Am A Free will, Full Liability, Flesh And Blood Living Man, Created By God. I Am Not The “Person” David Kevin Lindsay Charged And/or Named And/or Otherwise Identified On Each Count 1, Count 2, Count 3, Count 4 And Count 5 On This Information.
He did not say he is not “David-Kevin: Lindsay”, which name also appeared on the Information.
 As far as not being “a” person, Mr. Lindsay relies on the definition of “person” at s. 248 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended, which states:
"person", or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity's taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;
Notwithstanding the word “includes”, Mr. Lindsay takes the position that only artificial persons such as corporations come within the definition, so that he is not subject to the requirement to file a return under the Income Tax Act. This position ignores the fact that the ordinary meaning of “person” is a natural person (including, I would have thought, a “free will, full liability flesh and blood living man”) and that the purpose of the statutory definition is to extend the meaning to include other specified legal entities as well. Mr. Lindsay’s position that he is not a “person” for purposes of the Income Tax Act is simply not tenable.
The Events of March 2, 2004
 On March 2, 2004, Mr. Lindsay was attending Provincial Court in connection with a traffic ticket matter. As I have said, the Crown had been experiencing difficulty in serving Mr. Lindsay with a Summons on the income tax charges, as Mr. Lindsay purported to refuse to “accept” service. Mr. Burnett, counsel for the federal Crown, was in court March 2, and became aware that Mr. Lindsay would be attending. (Contrary to Mr. Lindsay’s assertion, this was not “confidential information”.) Mr. Burnett had the income tax file brought forward, using a “call date” form for that purpose. Perhaps because he was in doubt as to whether Mr. Lindsay had in fact been served, he asked the Court to “deal with this matter” then and there – i.e., to have the Information in respect of the income tax charges read to Mr. Lindsay. However, the Provincial Court judge dealt first with the traffic ticket file, specifically, with Mr. Lindsay’s objection to the date proposed for a pre-trial meeting on the basis of an unexplained “conflict”. It became apparent that the alleged “conflict” was not valid, and the judge rejected his objection. Mr. Lindsay then left the courtroom — notwithstanding that the judge told him he did not have the Court’s permission to do so. The judge told a sheriff, “we need … do need Mr. Lindsay back.”
 The record does not reflect this, but Mr. Lindsay says he was then physically assaulted by one or more sheriffs in the hallway, and forced back into the courtroom. He told the judge, “I’m not a party to any proceedings and I have left already.” Crown Counsel again requested that the Court read the five charges to Mr. Lindsay. The Provincial Court judge told Mr. Lindsay:
Mr. Lindsay, there are five counts, as I said, before me. I appreciate that you’re unhappy with this process. Ultimately, you can pursue remedies under the Charter, or under the Income Tax Act or under the Criminal Code, but that’s not something that I can consider at this point in time. I simply have an information before me. Any remedies that you might have with respect to the matter coming before the court, and whether or not the court is satisfied that you are properly before the court, is something for a later date.
Mr. Lindsay, the prosecutor has indicated that this matter has been call-dated. I do, in fact, have the matter before me. There are five counts, as I said.
Madam Registrar, could I see that traffic ticket again for one moment, please? Thanks.
Mr. Lindsay, the name on this court information, 59021, is David Kevin Lindsay. Is that you, sir?
There was no response to this question or to additional questions regarding Mr. Lindsay’s name. The Court proceeded to read the charges to Mr. Lindsay and adjourned the matter over to the following week. No plea was taken.
 I gather from Mr. Lindsay’s transcript evidence (the Crown’s factum being singularly unhelpful) that Mr. Lindsay did not appear in court when required to do so at a date later in March; that a warrant was issued; and that in due course he was brought before another judge of the Provincial Court, Judge Stansfield (as he then was) on the five income tax charges and a charge of failing to appear. After various adjournments, and after giving Mr. Lindsay several opportunities to undertake to appear voluntarily for trial, Judge Stansfield ordered Mr. Lindsay detained. (I assume he was released some time later, though I have found no transcript evidence to that effect.)
 We are advised that several days have been scheduled for the hearing of the income tax charges since then. Mr. Lindsay tells us, however, that to date he (Mr. Lindsay) has “restricted all issues to jurisdictional ones” in Provincial Court. That fact, and other appeals on other jurisdictional objections, have evidently delayed any hearing of the substantive charges thus far. (One such objection is the subject of a second appeal brought by Mr. Lindsay which was scheduled to be heard with this one and had to be adjourned. In that appeal, Mr. Lindsay seeks to have all the statutes of Canada declared void on the theory that the Governor General of Canada was not appointed in accordance with the Constitution and that therefore her assent and the assent of her predecessors to Canada’s laws were and are “invalid.”)
The Judgment Appealed From
 Against this background, Mr. Lindsay applied in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for orders in the nature of prohibition and certiorari, to have the income tax charges in Provincial Court quashed. He argued that the “call date” form by which his file was brought forward to the Provincial Court judge on March 2, 2004 was invalid. Mr. Lindsay relies on s. 34(2) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, which provides in essence that the procedures provided at Part XVI of the Criminal Code apply to Income Tax Act offences. Since the Code makes no provision for a court to compel an accused to attend in court by means of a “call date” form, Mr. Lindsay contends that the use of the form tainted, and indeed invalidated, all that occurred in Provincial Court thereafter.
 Again, Mr. Lindsay’s argument ignores an obvious fact — that the form was used to order court staff to bring his file to the judge on March 2, not to compel his appearance before the Court. (Mr. Lindsay was of course already in the courtroom on the traffic ticket matter). The Chambers judge rejected his submission, stating at para. 12 of his reasons:
There is no merit to this argument. The court is entitled to administer its affairs as it sees fit. The information in question was properly sworn and a file had been generated in the court's system. The court is of necessity required to adopt any number of administrative procedures in order to effectively carry out its responsibilities under the Criminal Code. The "call date" form is but one illustration of those procedures. The fact that the Provincial Court is a statutory court without inherent jurisdiction does not prevent it from implementing internal or, indeed, informal procedures intended to promote the efficient administration of its statutory responsibilities.
I see no error in this reasoning.
 Mr. Lindsay’s more substantive argument was that the Provincial Court had not “acquired” jurisdiction over him in respect of the income tax charges on March 2, 2004, and if it did, it had lost and did not “reacquire” jurisdiction, when he was forcibly brought back into the courtroom by the sheriff. In response, the Crown contended below that the Provincial Court’s jurisdiction over the person of Mr. Lindsay was not “affected by the manner in which the person is brought before the Court” and that it had jurisdiction over Mr. Lindsay “both when he initially appeared and when he involuntarily appeared later that same day.” (Reasons of Barrow J., para 14.)
 The Chambers judge acceded to the Crown’s arguments. He noted that the weight of authority is to the effect that provided the information or other process before the court is otherwise proper, the court’s jurisdiction over an accused is not affected by the manner in which he or she is brought before it. In this regard, Barrow J. cited certain dicta of Riddell J.A. in Rex v. Isbell (1928) 51 C.C.C. 362 (Ont. S.C., App Div); as well as R. v. Gougeon (1980) 55 C.C.C. (2d) 218 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Walton (1905) 10 C.C.C. 269 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Poje  1 S.C.R. 516, R. v. Sidor (1982) 39 A.R. 541 (Q.B.), and a statement in Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (looseleaf, 2nd ed.), at para. 1: 7120:
Jurisdiction over an offender may be acquired or regained in any manner which results in his appearance before a court with jurisdiction over the offence, e.g., by summons, warrant or voluntary or involuntary appearance. [Emphasis added.]
Barrow J. then noted R. v. Tait  O.J. No. 2948 (Ont. C.J.), on which Mr. Lindsay relied. He commented:
As noted above, Mr. Lindsay relies on R. v. Tait in support of his position. He quotes from that case at para. 71 as follows:
A person may be brought before the court by means of a summons, an offence notice, a notice of trial, an undertaking, a recognizance, a warrant, a judge's order, or by voluntary appearance...
He concludes from the foregoing that absent one of those methods of securing the accused's attendance the court does not have jurisdiction. In my view, R. v. Tait does not stand for that proposition.Indeed, later in that case Justice of the Peace Quon adopted the remarks of Mr. Justice Dubin from R. v. Naylor in the Ontario Court of Appeal as follows:
A distinction must be made between those matters which relate to the validity of an information and those matters which relate to the validity of a summons or warrant or to matters relating to the confirmation of an appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance. Where there is a valid information and an accused attends, the trial Judge has jurisdiction to proceed with the matter notwithstanding that there has been a defect in the process respecting a summons or warrant or confirmation. The invalidity of such process, not invalidating the information, would not deprive the Court of proceeding with the matter when the accused is before it. However, where the information itself is invalid, the trial Judge would have no basis upon which to proceed.
Although not expressly dealing with appearances brought about in circumstances such as those before me that principle, in my judgment, applies here. As long as the defect, whether it is a defect in the issuance of process or a defect in the manner by which the accused is otherwise brought before the court, does not invalidate the information (and in this case there is no suggestion that it does) then the court has jurisdiction to proceed once the accused is before it.
Mr. Lindsay applies for orders in the nature of prohibition. The writ of prohibition is as pointed out in Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada at para. 26:300,
... the means whereby a superior court prevents (prohibits) a court of inferior jurisdiction from exercising, or attempting to exercise, a jurisdiction which it does not possess or which it has lost.
Given that I am satisfied the Provincial Court had jurisdiction in this matter, the writ does not lie and the orders sought will not be granted. [Paras. 21-4; emphasis added.]
 In addition, Barrow J. in the case at bar noted that a writ of prohibition, being a prerogative writ, is not granted if alternative remedies are available: see Dubois v. The Queen (1986) 25 C.C.C. (3d) 221 (S.C.C.). He stated that other remedies might be available to Mr. Lindsay in respect of the alleged assault of his person on March 2 — for example, under s. 24 of the Charter, or at common law by means of the doctrine of abuse of process.
 With respect to Mr. Lindsay’s argument that he is not the person charged under the income tax Information and that he would be deprived of his defence (which is that he is not the person charged) if he were compelled to proceed to trial, the Chambers judge adopted at para. 27 the comments of Bernard J. in HMTQ v. Lindsay, 2004 BCSC 1181, who stated:
Court attendance, per se, cannot prejudice a defendant in his or her defence, whether based upon lack of identification or otherwise. Mr. Lindsay is wrong in his belief that by attending court his defence (that he is not the person named in the Information) would have been prejudiced. He was free to advance that defence and any other; however, he was not free to evade the court process once he was named as a defendant, even if erroneously named.
(I note parenthetically that other Provincial Court judges have given similar assurances to Mr. Lindsay, and that counsel for the Crown has clearly acknowledged in court that by appearing in court on the charges, Mr. Lindsay would not be taken as “attorning” to its jurisdiction or somehow conceding that he is the person named in the Information.)
 The Chambers judge also rejected Mr. Lindsay’s argument in favour of an order in the nature of certiorari; but since this was not pursued on appeal, I need not recount the Court’s findings in that regard. In the result, Mr. Lindsay’s applications were dismissed.
 Returning to the incident of March 2, 2004, I note that there is nothing on the record of the proceedings to suggest that the Provincial Court judge ordered the sheriff to drag Mr. Lindsay forcibly back into the courtroom. It is likely she assumed that, like most people, Mr. Lindsay would do the Court the courtesy of returning when requested. But Mr. Lindsay did not do so, apparently being under the (erroneous) impression that he had not been served with the Summons and Information and was entitled to leave unimpeded. The question for this court is not whether he was correct, but whether the Chambers judge below erred in concluding that the Provincial Court did not “lose jurisdiction”, and that it now has jurisdiction over him in respect of the income tax charges.
 Mr. Lindsay likens the incident of March 2 to a forcible “kidnapping” such as occurred in R. v. Horseferry, Rhode Magistrate’s Court, ex parte Bennett 1 A.C. 42 (H.L.). It concerned a New Zealand citizen who was alleged to have committed criminal offences in the United Kingdom. He was traced to South Africa by the English police and was returned forcibly to the U.K., which had no extradition treaty with South Africa. According to the headnote, the accused claimed that he had been kidnapped from South Africa as a result of collusion between the South African and English police, and sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the court in the U.K. to commit him for trial. He requested an adjournment in order to challenge the court’s jurisdiction but that application was refused by a magistrate. The Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the refusal.
 On appeal to the House of Lords, the Crown sought to rely on various older English authorities, as well as two Canadian cases (R. v. Walton  10 C.C.C. 269, and Rex. v. Whiteside (1904) 8 C.C.C. 478) which supported the proposition that once an accused is before the court, the circumstances under which he or she was brought there are not the concern of the court, but of the executive branch of government. The majority of the House of Lords held, however, that the doctrine of abuse of process should be extended and that the judiciary should “accept a responsibility for the maintenance of the rule of law that embraces a willingness to oversee executive action, and refuse to countenance behaviour that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law.” (At 62.) This conclusion was reached even though there was no suggestion the accused would not receive a fair trial or that it would have been unfair to try him if he had been returned to England through proper extradition procedures. Lord Griffiths observed:
I have no doubt that the judiciary should accept this responsibility in the field of criminal law. The great growth of administrative law during the latter half of this century has occurred because of the recognition by the judiciary and Parliament alike that it is a function of the High Court to ensure that executive action is exercised responsibly and as Parliament intended. So also should it be in the field of criminal law and if it comes to the attention of the court that there has been a serious abuse of power it should, in my view, express its disapproval by refusing to act upon it. …
The courts, of course, have no power to apply direct discipline to the police or the prosecuting authorities, but they can refuse to allow them to take advantage of abuse of power by regarding their behaviour as abuse of process and thus preventing a prosecution.
In my view your Lordships should now declare that where process of law is available to return an accused to this country through extradition procedures our courts will refuse to try him if he has been forcibly brought within our jurisdiction in disregard of those procedures by a process to which our own police, prosecuting or other executive authorities have been a knowing party. [At 62.]
Accordingly, the House of Lords returned the matter to the Court of Queen’s Bench with the instruction that it had the power to inquire into the circumstances by which the accused had been brought into the jurisdiction, and to stay the prosecution if satisfied that it was in “disregard of extradition procedures”.
 Although the House of Lords made no reference to “loss of jurisdiction”, and indeed obviously contemplated that the court would continue to have jurisdiction — including jurisdiction to grant a stay if appropriate — Mr. Lindsay contends that this court should follow the lead of Horseferry and express its outrage at his treatment by ruling that the Provincial Court lost jurisdiction over him by virtue of the March 2 incident.
 Before us, the Crown simply relied on R. v. Naylor (1978) 42 C.C.C. (2d) 12 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Gougeon, supra, for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court “was not affected by the manner in which the appellant was brought before the Court.” As well, counsel emphasized that Mr. Lindsay was not precluded from pursuing other remedies, nor from asserting that he is not the person referred to in the Information.
 I agree with the Chambers judge that the weight of Canadian authority is to the effect that jurisdiction will not be affected by the manner in which the accused is brought before the court, assuming the charging document is not defective. It is true that the authorities relied on by the Crown and by the Court on this point are not recent and pre-date the Charter; but Mr. Lindsay was not able to cite any case to us in which the involuntary appearance of an accused pursuant to a valid warrant or other process has been held to deprive a court of jurisdiction. Since the Charter came into effect, new remedies have been available to persons who are arbitrarily detained in violation of their rights under s. 9. Those rights are enforceable by a stay of proceedings where appropriate, as well as by the traditional civil law remedies. The new developments only strengthen the Crown’s submission that an order in the nature of prohibition is not available in this case, even if one were to accept (which I do not) that the incident of March 2, 2004 was in any way comparable to that in Horseferry.
 Even if this were not the case, any defect in the process whereby Mr. Lindsay was brought before the Court on the income tax charges became moot once a warrant was issued later in March 2004 by Judge Stansfield. The Provincial Court has clearly had jurisdiction over Mr. Lindsay from at least that point.
 As Mr. Lindsay has been told on many occasions, the fact he was compelled to attend in Provincial Court does not preclude him from advancing his defence, based on identity, to the income tax charges. He is still entitled to put the Crown to the proof of its case against him, which must include proof of his identity as the offender, assuming the offences took place. This is true even though on April 5, 2004, after the warrant was issued for Mr. Lindsay’s arrest and he was charged with failing to appear, Judge Stansfield requested that Crown counsel provide proof that it was indeed Mr. Lindsay who had been served with the “Requirements to File”. Crown counsel called Ms. Tracy Todd to the stand, who testified that she had served the “Requirements to File” on “David Kevin Lindsay” and that he was the individual in the courtroom that day. Judge Stansfield then stated:
David Kevin Lindsay, I put the Crown to that burden in order to be careful that you, the man to whom I’m speaking, are the same man who is charged in this information. I recognize that you do not recognize the validity of these proceedings, but I am satisfied that the Crown is seeking to prosecute you, the man to whom I’m speaking. [Emphasis added.]
Again, this does not obviate the necessity for the Crown to prove, in the actual trial of the income tax charges, that Mr. Lindsay is in fact the person who has failed to file income tax returns as alleged, if indeed that is proven to be the case. In the meantime, the Provincial Court has the jurisdiction, which it has not lost, to proceed with the trial of the charges laid out in the Information
We all know that this system that we are yoked under is dependent on you and I running out and buying the latest magic box and the latest piece of fashion rag. Only to find that once you have it, not only did it not deliver the wonderful happiness and success that the makers spouted but it is also out of date and you are urged to run out and get the next latest fix. You must consume, spend all you have and take on some debt just to keep feeding the insatiable appetite of the greed machine, the profit junkies, the sweaty palmed shareholders. Once you realise that you don't need all the crap they are throwing at you, you aren't any happier with the latest sweat shop manufactured coloured rags, you are then free from the clutches of the system.
November 28 is “BUY NOTHING DAY” of course it should be 27, 28, 29 November for starters. If you put this little effort in to action you can have immense pleasure in watching the panic at the casino, the “Stoke Exchange” as they all run for new underpants. We live under a system that can't survive without you continually consuming and it is not for your benefit but for the benefit of those profit junkies the corrupt corporate/financial brotherhood. The same mob that screwed the system for billions at the banking casino and got bucketfuls of your money to help them out and in return you must have your welfare system shredded and your standard of life decimated.
Have a go, let's all have a BUY NOTHING DAY or two, all at the same time, you never know, you might grow to like the idea and the freedom it brings you. Then there is the sure joy watching our financial overlords have a nervous breakdown. It could be come a habit and we would be on our way to changing this stinking system and replacing it with one that sees to the needs of all our people and is based on sustainability and mutual aid.
Ask any person how money is generally created and s/he is likely to tell you that the banks or the mint does it somehow. Ask any person specifically where the money for their personal loan or mortgage comes from and s/he is likely to say that it comes from depositors' funds. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the signature of the debtor on the promissory note that authorizes the bank to create the principal out of thin air and hypothetize your asset. Such money is created by debt. Banks don't lend money. The money is really created by the borrower who signs the promissory note. Almost all money is created by debt, so if there was no debt there would be no money. The primary way to expand the money supply is to create war.
Furthermore, the bank does not create the interest or usury but it exacts such along with the principal from the debtor. Through a process of constructive forgery where neither the debtor (borrower) nor the banker (creditor) bring anything to the table a loan is created whereby you sign an IOU to the bank and the bank treats the IOU as money. You have created new money by a pledge of debt. During the 20th Century the 'fractional reserve' system permitted banks to create and loan $9000.00 when a depositor deposited $1000.00. Fractional reserve banking means that commercial banks were required to keep a specified reserve to qualify them to create and lend mortgages or loans to debtors legally. Governments took away the fractional reserve requirements for most commercial banks during the latter years of the 20th Century.
Government relies on taxes and/or borrowing as their prime methods of financing. Any government commonly raises funds through the borrowing method by selling its bonds on the open market operations. These government bonds are bought by the large transnational corporations, insurance companies and/or commercial banks. By this government borrowing method to raise funds the taxpayers pay the principal for the infrastructure of highways, bridges or whatever plus the interest or usury costs. Most government funding of this modern era is by this borrowing method and the taxpayer pays the interest or usury to the banks and large corporations for just about everything the government offers, with most taxes giving directly for debt service on the government debt.
In summary, the funds of the wage earners are transferred through taxes to the wealthy holders of capital. Even more noteworthy, is the fact that the community must pay more back than it originally received, which of course is an impossibility. There is a withdrawal of currency when debtors pay back their loans. The alternative to this conventional system of money creation through reliance on debt is the action of the government directly investing into the production of consumer goods. The Parliament of Canada has the authority to create and spend the money directly into the economy without an interest or usury cost.
In the early 1800's, the small island of Guernsey off the coast of Normandy, France implemented a system of money creation where a direct expenditure was used. The island of Guernsey was impoverished and the population was in decline. The local town council simply issued Guernsey Island paper notes instead of seeking usury-based loans from banks. This resulted in a dramatic improvement in the island's standard of living. Money was issued on road construction and public market and neither inflation nor public debt occurred as the notes were removed by taxes.
As we progress into this 21st century, it is imperative that municipal governments study the Guernsey model with a goal to implement such a creative strategy to solve the ever-present shortage of money. The usuryfree community currency movement is likewise positioned to offer resources and expertise on how any municipality can create and spend its own usuryfree community currency.
Today is Black Friday, a day dedicated to our basest and most pathetic inclinations. The day after giving thanks for all that we have, we turn around and jump through horrible hoops to accumulate more at the insistence of sleazy, desperate retailers. It's a nice summation of everything wrong with this country and the holiday season, an appropriately named cancerous mark on our calendars. Our behavior today is the sort of thing an alien race would use as justification for our destruction. Let's run through the specifics, shall we?
1. Deals in Exchange for Dignity
You know what sucks? Not being able to afford something you really want, like an HDTV, unless you sacrifice your dignity by camping out in front of a mall in below-freezing temperatures on a
night that should be spent with your family. The insane early-hour doorbuster sales force people, especially people with lower incomes who rely on discounts and sales, to physically suffer for their purchases. No cheap Blu-ray player is worth that.
2. May the Worst Man Win
Once you've spent the night camped out in line in front of a store, knowing full well there aren't enough discounted plasma TVs to go around, you turn into an animal. After all, if you leave empty handed you've wasted your entire night. So when those doors finally open, you don't have a line of shoppers—you have a line of bloodthirsty, vicious monsters that aren't afraid to throw a few elbows to get to that pallet of merchandise first.
3. Everyone Stinks of Desperation
In previous years, it was the shoppers who were desperate on Black Friday, with retailers playing the role of sleazy opportunists. But now, with a financial crisis in full, brutal swing, both sides are equally desperate. The retailers need the shoppers as much as the shoppers need the deals, putting a lot more on the line for everyone involved this year. It's a sad situation, one that lends an extra air of patheticness to the whole ordeal.
4. Bait and Switch
One thing that's consistent throughout all the Black Friday ads we've seen is that there aren't actually many good deals to be had. Every store offers up a handful of legit deep discounts, of which they have an inadequate supply. They get you into the store with these deals, but unless you slept on a sidewalk the night before, you were basically suckered into coming in for nothing, nothing but the retailer’s hope that you'll stick around and buy stuff at full price, like an idiot.
5. You Don't Really Want This Crap
Even if you do score what you came for, they’re probably not actually the things you want. They're what you'll settle for. You've had your eye on a Garmin with voice command or a Samsung with LED backlighting, but they’re not on sale. So you suck it up and instead buy the more gimped Garmin (or even a TomTom) or the Samsung with the crappier contrast CCFL backlight. You can’t justify buying the top product when the step-down is so insanely discounted. Black Friday has totally removed the satisfaction of researching a particular product and buying it because you really want it.
6. Seasonal Employees are Idiots
Every holiday season, retailers hire fresh meat to work for a month or two to help handle the rise in demand. Guess what? They don't train them very well and these seasonal workers could give a shit about the company they're working for. Bad combo! When you're trying to buy something expensive like an HDTV, you want to ask questions from someone who both knows what they're talking about and at least has a mild interest in you having a positive experience. Seasonal employees provide neither of these things.
7. There Will Be Blood
Every year boatloads and boatloads of people show up for Black Friday sales, and every year retailers can't handle it. Maybe they won't be set up for the line and it'll be disorganized, leading people to fight for spots. Or maybe the registers will go down, leading to insanely long waits to check out. But something will invariably go wrong—very wrong—making your shopping experience even worse, if that's even possible.
8. The Kickoff of the Advertising Clusterfuck
Nothing ruins the holidays like advertising. Every year it gets more cynical, with fat guys in Santa suits promoting everything from beers to debt consolidation. You can't turn on the TV without being assaulted by some schmaltzy crap designed to twist your positive memories of the holiday season into an impetuous purchase. Nothing flushes my feelings of goodwill towards my fellow man down the toilet like seeing a line of Walmart cashiers playing Christmas songs with their register lights.
9. Buying Presents Sucks
This might be a dickish point, but come on. Deep down, you agree. Going out and shopping for other people is no fun. Sure, giving stuff to people feels great, but the actual act of going to a store, finding something and buying it and then not actually having anything for yourself to justify this sacrifice? It's for the birds. Holiday shopping is a hellish, hellish experience, and the warm fuzzies you get from giving someone a gift don't quite make up for the shitshow it requires you to put up with.
10. You're Poor
Seriously, what the hell are you doing buying this stuff anyway? You don't have any savings, you live paycheck to paycheck and if you haven't been laid off yet you probably will be soon. Just because something is cheaper than it usually is doesn't mean you have to buy it. You can go into debt just as easily buying shit when it's on sale as you can buying shit when it's full priced. Don't get suckered by advertising. Give yourself the best gift of all this holiday season: being fiscally responsible.
Bow down or be punished. That is the holiday message of the TSA. If a plebian enters the gulag zone at the airport, and then refuses to submit to either the Chertoff radiation-scanner and its naked photo, or the full-body feel-up, and decides to opt out of flying, he will be detained for interrogation, and not allowed to leave. If the human being leaves the gulag zone, in disobedience to the Blue Shirts, he will be fined $11,000, and perhaps arrested too.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., former publications editor to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, literary executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com.
The following legislation has been edited in terms of both its original content and formatting.
SENATE RESOLUTION No. 91 _____..._____
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
214th LEGISLATURE _____..._____
INTRODUCED NOVEMBER 22, 2010
Sponsored by: Senator MICHAEL J. DOHERTY District 23 (Warren and Hunterdon)
Co-Sponsored by: Senators Allen and Codey
Urges Transportation Security Administration to terminate recent changes to its procedure for conducting pat down searches at airport checkpoints.
[. . . .]
A SENATE RESOLUTION urging the Transportation Security Administration to terminate recent changes to its procedure for conducting pat down searches at airport checkpoints.
WHEREAS, The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the federal government charged with protecting the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce; and
WHEREAS, The TSA is responsible for screening airline passengers and personnel for weapons, explosives, and other contraband that pose a threat to airport security and the safety of the general public; and
WHEREAS, Current TSA screening policy requires that airline passengers and personnel either pass through advanced-image technology scanners, or otherwise elect to undergo a pat down search administered by TSA employees; and
WHEREAS, The advanced-image technology scanners used by TSA capture images that depict the shape and outline of a subject’s full body as it appears underneath the subject’s clothing; and
WHEREAS, Many airline passengers and personnel find advanced-image technology scanners overly invasive and, therefore, prefer the alternative option of undergoing a pat down search; and
WHEREAS, As a matter of nationwide policy, the TSA on October 28, 2010 began implementing new pat down procedures that involve a more intrusive, full-body search, during which TSA personnel make physical contact with sensitive areas of the body; and
WHEREAS, These new procedures are potentially offensive and humiliating to every individual upon whom they are imposed and, indeed, particularly egregious in their application to women, children, and disabled members of our society; and
WHEREAS, Reports have indicated that in some instances overzealous TSA employees have carried out these new procedures in a manner sufficiently aggressive to rise to the level of an inappropriate invasion of personal privacy, from which an individual would ordinarily be protected under the laws of this State; and
WHEREAS, Encouraging travel by ensuring the right of individuals to move about without fear of undue invasions of privacy is essential to preserving a free society, safeguarding the flow of commerce, and sustaining good will among nations; and
WHEREAS, The new pat down procedures implemented by the TSA have, to the contrary, discouraged travel by creating fear of physical intrusions of the person; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVEDby the Senate of the State of New Jersey:
1. This House urges the Transportation Security Administration to immediately terminate its use of the new pat down search procedures that were adopted on October 28, 2010, and resume conducting pat down searches in accordance with the procedures that were in place prior thereto.
2. Duly authenticated copies of this Senate resolution, signed by the President of the Senate and attested by the Secretary thereof, shall be transmitted to the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration and every member of Congress from this State.
This Senate resolution urges the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to end the use of its recently adopted procedures for conducting pat down searches and to return to its former procedures.
Under current TSA policies, airline passengers and personnel must either pass through advanced-imaging technology scanners or otherwise elect to undergo a pat down search administered by a TSA employee. Because the scanners produce images that depict the shape and outline of an individual’s body as it appears under the individual’s clothing, many passengers have instead chosen a pat down search as the less intrusive option for meeting security requirements.
However, as of October 28, 2010, TSA has begun implementing new pat down procedures that are more invasive. These procedures require TSA employees to make physical contact with sensitive areas of a person’s body. Furthermore, there have been reports that some searches have been conducted in an overly aggressive manner, resulting in severe and humiliating invasions of privacy. This resolution urges TSA to end these new pat down procedures and to return to conducting pat down searches in accordance with its former, less-invasive procedures.
First, I have a hard time referring to professional crotch fondlers as “agents.” They’re largely untrained, uneducated, incapable of spotting threats, and programmed into assuming anyone who’s uncomfortable is a threat, regardless of background. They’re unthinking bureaucratic drones, not “agents.” I doubt we can publicly call them PedoSmurfs, but I’m sure we all think of them that way.
This Wednesday is the day everyone with a spine has elected to opt out of the Nude O Scope and insist on a groping.
They’re going to hassle you for this, of course. That’s not the point. The point is that if you’re going to be hassled, they get to share in the experience.
Here then, are some ideas to improve the process.
Take lots of bottles. Play stupid. They’re going to dispose of them, and that’s fine. A few dozen people doing this clogs the trash cans, takes “agent” time and slows the process.
I’ve had a tiny metal clip and a CAC card set off the detector. Wear suspenders or metal buttons. Forget some change in your pocket. A cheap metal locket around your neck? A spare key? Add little bits until they spend 5 minutes wanding you for it all.
Wear steel-toed shoes. They have to go through the scanner, and they’re going to read big, black toes. Will they bother searching? Or admit they really don’t care and it’s just to hassle you?
Also, how safe is it to walk in stocking feet across a floor that 1000 other people have walked across, some of them with athletes foot and the like? Break out a bleach wipe and sterilize the floor in front of you, or pull booties onto each foot.
Ask to see the calibration certificate for the Nude O Scope, and ask what level of radiation and what frequency it uses. The canned response will be, “Sir, it’s safe.” There is no such thing as a “Safe” level of radiation. So how much actual exposure is there? Insist on an answer. Demand to talk to the supervisor. Push them to get on the phone and ask (because they won’t know). Be adequately loud so others hear about “potentially cancer-causing levels of X rays.”
Heck, ask if they have a lead vest you can wear.
“Forget” something, leave the secure area, and come back through again. Make them work for it.
Take a tub of Play Doh for your “nephew.” Sealed, of course. They’ll seize it. Once again, this takes time on their part.
Carry a sex toy in your carry on, batteries loaded. Put it in a plastic bag and make sure it’s got a little grease in with it.
Wear a kilt or skirt. Don’t wear undies. Make them really feel the experience.
Are you legitimately hard of hearing? Keep pointing at your ear, loudly complaining and shaking your head. Ask them to write out all the instructions, or make them demonstrate them.
You are not required to speak English in this country. Can you fake Spanish? French? Something Altaic?
Turn your head and cough.
Wear a well-padded bra.
Are you brave enough to cross dress? False boobs or a “packy” phallus will add to the fun.
Wear a pad or adult diaper, whether you need one or not. Though as long as you’re going to be waiting, you may actually appreciate one.
Hum or purr while being groped. If they don’t enjoy it, make them think you do. It’s acting. You can do it for 60 seconds.
Follow this with a breathy whisper of, “That was HOT!”
“Can I feel you, now?”
“Do you hang out at the glory hole at the Pervert’s Playpen (or any fetish club near you)? That seems familiar.”
“There must be a lot of homos/pedos working here.”
“When you took this job, did you think they’d ask you to be gay for pay?”
“When do you think this is going to get to you and you’ll turn gay?”
“Haven’t you ever enjoyed it? At least once?”
Remember these people have no power of arrest. If they take too long, all you have to ask is, “Am I being detained? Am I under arrest? If I am not under arrest, am I free to go? If I am not free to go, I must insist on a police officer. I wish to file charges for kidnapping, a federal offense.”
Finally, as you leave the area, be sure to loudly commend the system. “I’m sure glad they have lots of jobs for pedos and faggots these days.”
Nigel Farage the UKIP leader has said the news that Brian Lenihan the Irish finance minister is recommending that Ireland accept the IMF/EU bailout signals an end to Irish independence.
"So it has happened," he said. “
"We do not yet know what terms the EU is demanding, but they will be onerous.
"Instead of taking the opportunity to regain fiscal independence the Irish political elite have preferred to give up Ireland’s independence after 90 years," he said.
"It is now a fully fledged protectorate of Brussels. Its people will no longer be able to choose its government’s policies.
"And the people who are telling us that this is unavoidable are the same people who bullied Ireland into a Yes vote when they famously rejected the Lisbon Treaty. I hope that they will be punished by their own people."
"Now of course all eyes will be turning to Portugal. The bail out fund is not inexhaustible," he warned.
This is really a strange, little “letter,” or New York Times op-ed, from Warren Buffett to the world’s savior, Uncle Sam. Mr. Buffett expresses his gratitude to his Dear Uncle and the chorus of worker bee bureaucrats — Bair, Geithner, Paulson, Bernanke — who acted promptly to help stave off disaster and defend the portfolios of Wall Street’s wealthiest supporters. He refers to government actions as being “remarkably effective.” It is signed “Your grateful nephew.” There’s not much more one can say about this swooning tripe.
HOUSE BILL NO. 1397 Offered January 12, 2011 Prefiled July 21, 2010
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 10.1-1306.1, relating to compliance with energy efficiency standards for residences under federal cap and trade legislation. ___________ Patron – Marshall, R.G. ___________ Committee Referral Pending ___________ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 10.1-1306.1 as follows:
§ 10.1-1306.1. Residential energy efficiency; building retrofit.
A. For the purposes of this section:
"Manufactured home" means the same as that term defined in § 36-85.3.
"Residential building" means a building whose primary use is residential. Such buildings shall include single-family homes (both attached and detached), owner-occupied units in larger buildings with their own dedicated space-conditioning systems, and buildings used for both residential and nonresidential purposes in which more than half of building floor space is residential.
B. No residential building or manufactured home that is in compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code (§ 36-97 et seq.) shall be subject to federally enacted "cap and trade" legislation. No owner of a residential building or manufactured home shall be required to (i) have an energy efficiency analysis of his private residence conducted, (ii) meet federal energy efficiency standards, (iii) participate in a building energy performance labeling program established by the federal government, (iv) make modifications to the residence in accordance with the retrofit provisions of federal "cap and
trade" legislation requirements, and (v) obtain a label from the federal government that shall be posted on his property showing the energy efficiency rating of the residence prior to the sale of such residence in order to comply with federal energy and water efficiency requirements.
C. A failure to comply with any federal building code shall not bar the sale of a residential building or manufactured home that is in compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code.
D. No state agency shall assist any federal agency in the implementation of a federal global warming or climate change building code.
E. The Attorney General is authorized to initiate legal action against the federal government if there is any federal law, regulation, or policy that seeks to apply federal "cap and trade" legislation to Virginia.
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOVEMBER 17, 2010
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Traveller Dignity Act of 2010’’.
SEC. 2. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.
No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
A BILL to amend and reenact § 10.1-1300 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 10.1-1306.1, relating to Department of Environmental Quality; carbon dioxide. __________
Patrons - Morefield, Bell, Richard P., Carrico, Crockett-Stark, Edmunds, Kilgore and Merricks; Senator: Puckett __________
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources __________
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That § 10.1-1300 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted and that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 10.1-1306.1 as follows:
§ 10.1-1300. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning:
"Advisory Board" means the State Advisory Board on Air Pollution.
"Air pollution" means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more substances which are or may be harmful or injurious to human health, welfare or safety, to animal or plant life, or to property, or which unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment by the people of life or property. Carbon dioxide shall not be considered air pollution.
"Board" means the State Air Pollution Control Board.
"Department" means the Department of Environmental Quality.
"Director" or "Executive Director" means the Executive Director of the Department of Environmental Quality.
"Owner" shall have no connotation other than that customarily assigned to the term "person," but shall include bodies politic and corporate, associations, partnerships, personal representatives, trustees and committees, as well as individuals.
"Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, a governmental body, a municipal corporation, or any other legal entity.
"Special order" means a special order issued under § 10.1-1309.
§ 10.1-1306.1. Authority of the Board; Department; carbon dioxide.
Neither the Board nor the Director shall take any action to restrict the emission of carbon dioxide. Any federal law or regulation that purports to prohibit, limit, or control in any way
the emission of carbon dioxide shall be without authority, void, and of no force within the boundaries of the Commonwealth. As such, neither the Board nor the Director shall:
1. Regulate or adopt any regulation that restricts the emission of carbon dioxide;
2. Issue or amend any permit to restrict carbon dioxide emissions; or
3. Allocate funds, personnel, or any resources to efforts directed at the restriction of carbon dioxide emissions, including research, study, or investigation of any kind.
The federal government relies on plunder, mainly in the form of income taxes, to feed it's overreaching tentacles and this is perfectly Constitutional as set forth in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 along with the Sixteenth Amendment. These do not however specify how these taxes are to be collected and currently the Internal Revenue Service is charged with this task.
But what if the states had the ability to take control of the purse strings and starve the beast back to it's enumerated powers? We the people, through our state legislatures would have the ability to affirm what we believe the role and oversight of the federal government should be in our daily lives through a Federal Tax Escrow Account.
By this method, the federal government would still retain it's enumerated power to tax but it would be up to the individual states to collect and further the money along. The premise is simple, the state's legislature would determine what parts of the federal budget it considers Constitutional and would forward that percentage along. The remainder of the taxes collected would then be used to fund programs currently funded by the federal government with whatever remains left over returned to the people.
Through this form of state interposition, the several states would reestablish their sovereignty, put a stop to out of control federal spending and prevent Leviathan from creating unconstitutional mandates such as the ones found in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare.
We would rapidly find that without its ability to tax and spend recklessly and with little regard for the will of the people, Leviathan would starve and unconstitutional agencies would soon cease to exist. We would also put an end to federal intervention in the affairs of other nations along with the debasement of our currency.
The takeaway would be a smaller, more streamlined federal government that would return to its Constitutional roots and govern as the founders sought it to govern. It would be up to the individual states to take care of its citizens, as it should be, and while this is not a perfect solution, we the people would gain more control as we have a greater say in what happens in our state legislatures as opposed to what happens in DC.
A few states, Washington, Georgia, Ohio and Oklahoma, have bravely taken up this fight. We need to pressure the legislators in our own states to join the battle to retain our sovereign rights and put an end to Leviathan.
We continue down the trail blazed by George W. Bush. Now Mr. Obama wants to expand the Chief Executive's power to arbitrarily murder US citizens anywhere in the world without a trial. All he has to do is say it's done in the name of fighting terrorism.
That's tyranny. No one person should have that kind of power over other human beings.
And once we've submitted to that lurch toward an authoritarian government, it can only expand. I'm no mindreader, but Obama doesn't appear to be the bloodthirsty, vindictive type. But who knows what his successors will do with this new temptation to zap enemies?
The central government is out of control. It's time to pull the plug on this overgrown obscenity.
Remember that weaselly-looking turd Herman van Rompuy? Here he is, speaking in Berlin:
We have together to fight the danger of a new Euro-scepticism. This is no longer the monopoly of a few countries. In every Member State, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world. It is more than an illusion: it is a lie!
He goes on to build a strawman of his adversaries motivated by fear: "Fear leads to egoism, egoism leads to nationalism, and nationalism leads to war", but it sounds like Rompuy is the one living in fear. Besides, Rompuy and his fellow federasts are not at all opposed to nationalism, it is just that they identify themselves with the EU as a nation.
Also, opposition to him and his corrupt, parasitical cohort has nothing to do with the illusion he conjures with. The issue is whether we can survive without the Brussels bureaucratic leviathan, and of course we can. We need Rompuy and his crew no more than a gut needs a tapeworm.
He can make all the speeches he likes about 'cooperation' and 'shared vision' and all that type of shit. He has no mandate nor legitimate authority. I'd sooner salute Idi Amin as Emperor of Scotland than Herman van Fuckwit.
I take comfort from his words, as they reveal the fear that he has, of the rising tide of disgust at the EU's corruption and illegitimacy. Ironically, Rompuy is helping to unite Europeans - IN OPPOSITION TO HIM AND HIS AGENDA.
So Rompuy, keep up the work. Everything you do and say furthers your enemies' case, and, by the way we are not 'Euro-sceptic'. This doesn't come close to encapsulating the depth of our hatred of all you stand for.
As originally posted on:Hit & Run November 10, 2010
Last week, Missouri Circuit Court Judge Judge Warren McElwain declared Dale Helmig innocent of killing his mother in 1993. Helmig was convicted in 1996. In his ruling, McElwain declared Helmig to be "the victim of a fundamental miscarriage of justice."
Many factors contributed to Helmig's conviction, including an inept public defender, false police testimony, and snitch testimony from inmates. But McElwain went out of his way to criticize the behavior of former Missouri prosecutor Kenny Hulshof.
In his opinion, McElwain cited numerous instances where either Hulshof or Schollmeyer presented testimony that was later shown to be false and that they should have known was false. One section is titled “Kenny Hulshof knew or should have known that the testimony presented was false that Dale Helmig tacitly admitted killing his mother.”
In another section, McElwain states that Hulshof made improper use of unsupported testimony that Dale Helmig and his mother had been in a fight in which Helmig allegedly threw hot coffee in his mother’s face. That altercation, at a restaurant, actually involved Norma Helmig and Ted Helmig, her estranged husband.
“Even though the prosecution could not find a witness to substantiate this allegation, that did not stop them from trying to put the unproven and very inflammatory fact before the jury,” McElwain wrote.
This is the second case in two years in which Hulshof has been cited by a judge for misconduct that helped convict an innocent person. In February 2009, Missouri Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan declared Joshua Kezer innocent of the 1992 murder of college student Angela Mischelle Lawless. Kezer was convicted in 1994. From the A.P. report last year:
[Callahan's] 44-page decision included a stinging rebuke of Hulshof, saying he withheld key evidence from defense attorneys and embellished details in his closing arguments.
Other than a statement Tuesday in which he affirmed his belief that Kezer is guilty, Hulshof has declined to comment.
The state's prosecution was based on the testimony of another suspect in Lawless' death who said he saw Kezer at a nearby convenience store on the night of the killing. But he gave conflicting testimony and three jail inmates who claimed Kezer had confessed to the killing later acknowledged lying in hopes of getting reduced sentences.
Back in 2008, the A.P. found five other cases in which Hulshof was accused of prosecutorial misconduct. So what has happened to Hulshof? For starters, he parlayed his tough-on-crime record as a prosecutor into a run for Congress, where he served for six terms. In 2008, he was the GOP nominee for governor of Missouri. He nearly became the president of the University of Missouri at Columbia. Currently, he has offices in Kansas City, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. as a lobbyist for the white shoe law firm Polsinelli Shughart.
A couple weeks ago, a Reason commenter wrote that convicting an innocent person of murder ought have a similar effect on a prosecutor's career that, say, amputating the wrong limb would have on a doctor's. That sounds about right. At minimum it demonstrates a degree of negligence that ought to bar a prosecutor from ever prosecuting a case again. He has destroyed an innocent person's life, prolonged suffering for the victim's family and, of coruse, allowed the actual murderer to get away with the crime. If it can be shown that a prosecutor's deliberate misconduct contributed to a wrongful conviction, he should lose his license to practice law.
Hulshof has done it twice. That we know of. And it's not like no one in Missouri knew about his aggressiveness. Yet he not only gets to continue practicing law as a jet-setting lobbyist, thanks to absolute immunity he'll never have to pay a dime of the fat salary those aggressive tactics won him to Joshua Kezer or Dale Helmig.
Nothing is sacred. Nobody is safe. Everything must go. Knowledge is free; it is the most valuable weapon a free people can have in the war against authority and hierarchy. I bloggregate from the miscellaneous battlefronts in this war. Unless we agree otherwise, I reserve the right to publish anything and everything you email me.