Individual (him/his/he) goes into a public building and was informed that his presence was not allowed. Someone presses up against him for a split second. He gets charged with assault. Copied below is his account of the incident and what shamefully occurred in court.

This individual, a private self-taught citizen, has successfully argued on behalf of himself, others,”the law”, and ultimately us, in courts across Canada. He deserves our respect & support  [the Kelowna court, arguing over an assault charge against him proven false by video recording requires him to obtain transcripts at outrageous costs].

If deciding to forward this email – please delete my email address.  Thanks.

Falsified assault charge

Kelowna Courthouse

R v David Lindsay s. 266 Criminal Code Assault

So, Dec. 13, 2021 was D-day. Judgments in the falsified assault charges against me, were to be rendered by Judge Heinrichs on the following issues:

1. The merits of the case of whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that I assaulted two security guards;

2. My RCMP Challenge – claiming that the RCMP Act was unconstitutional because only the Provinces can pass legislation in relation to policing in the Province, and,

3. The Crown’s application to have me cited for contempt.

I anticipated #1 would go first, for if I won on the merits of the assault charge (ie: not guilty) the RCMP Challenge would not require a hearing, and if I lost (ie: guilty) only then it would have to be dealt with. This procedure was not to be. The alleged offence date was August. 19, 2021.

First – brief history. We were having a series of protests at the Interior Health building at 505 Doyle Ave. in Kelowna in 2021 as a result of new mask orders from the health officer Sue Pollock located in that building. This brought huge publicity in the public eye of what they were doing and our opposition to mask requirements. I was trying to talk to reception on Aug. 11, 2021 to arrange for an official to talk to us. I had been told on August 4, 2021 that an official would come out and talk to us but never did. Security manager Greg Smith (the Professional Liar) assaulted our video reporter Leo and physically forced him out of the building while I talked to reception. Then they forced me out. All of this is on video and we were peaceful at all times; the only violence was Greg Smith’s assault on Leo. Despite this, Greg Smith purported to issue a no trespass order to me for one month.

We came back on Aug. 19, 2021. The Professional Liar and two Paladin security officials were there to block my right of entry into the Interior Health reception area. Police later arrived and Greg Smith the Professional Liar lied to the police and told them that I had been banned from the building for a month because I was causing a disturbance inside the building that morning. As said, the videos confirm that no such disturbance was ever caused by me or anyone else. Another lie from the Professional Liar.

I tried to exercise my right to enter the building and security officials used their upper torso to physically block me from entering. We touched briefly for about 1.5 seconds. Make no mistake…the video clearly shows THEM pushing into ME to block my right of entry.

Notwithstanding their assault on me, one has to look at this video to see just how trivial this incident was – lasting as it did about 1.5 seconds, with no injuries. 8:20-8:48. Admittedly now, Interior Health may not be a Crown corporation, but they are a government body and subject to the Charter. Thank you for posting this Marcel!! Jason Davis is in the middle and Taj Smith on the end, from Paladin as well. Davis no longer works there.

See also 4:43-5:54 where Raymond Bacolod, a private security official, stomps on Leo’s hands as he attempts to plug the extension cords back into the generator that Bacolod unplugged to shut down Linda’s freedom of speech. We charged Bacolod with assault. The Crown told us directly that we had a very good case yet then stayed the charge!! This assault was much more violent than any alleged 1.5 second touching in my case, and with a lot more people around as well. Marcel follows up with other assaults that were allowed to go unpunished by the Crown.

Charges were laid of assault on Dec. 8, 2021. Mr. Grabavac for the Crown, wanted an endorsed warrant to bring me before a judge. He only got an unendorsed warrant, meaning the police could release me – and they did a couple of weeks later, because of an alleged communications error between himself and the Informant.

Here are Mr. Grabavac’s only words, when he applies to the Court to try and get this reversed two days later on Dec. 10, 2021:

“So, it’s not the Crown’s intention to have Mr. Lindsay detained, however the Crown wants specific conditions put on, and specifically with respect to prohibiting his conduct at – potentially at these – there was a rally going on when the assaults occurred, so we would like an opportunity to make the submission to a judge on that.

That’s – yes, and the Crown is also seeking other no-go conditions that have no – that are less related to Interior Health than this. We’d also be asking for a condition that he not attend to any school district location – School District 23 property in Kelowna, and also not to attend any parks. So that’s the concern that really – that’s a little bit extensive…”

Read what Grabavac is saying just two days after the charges were laid. As a condition of my release, he wants me banned from all schools and parks in Kelowna, even though he admits that they have nothing to do with the alleged (unproven) offences at an Interior Health (IH) building downtown!!!!

Why would a prosecutor ask for such draconian relief if not for improper purposes? Because they wanted me banned from all parks to prevent me from conducting the rallies, as Grabavac admits, which as the RCMP admit have all been peaceful. So, the fix was in from the beginning on what Grabavac’s true ulterior intentions and motives were. He knew there was no real assault, but it was the perfect opportunity to try and ban me from the rallies, falsely thinking they would stop without my presence. What does a park in Mission or by the airport in Kelowna have to do with the IH building in downtown Kelowna? Nothing.

There is your background to these falsified charges. And it gets worse when you realize the professional liars on the witness stand.

On Dec. 13, 2023, Judge Heinrichs first denied my application that she was biased. Can you imagine the consequences of a judge ruling him/her self to be biased? It is self-incrimination – an admission that you were breaking the law…no judge is going to do this.

Judge Heinrichs then began her next judgment by dismissing my RCMP challenge. Admittedly there was an error in my Challenge, asking the Judge to strike the legislation that she has no power to do. What she can do, is simply not apply it. So, by not applying the RCMP Act and agreements, the RCMP officers had no power to investigate and obtain evidence. This is an irregularity and is permitted to be amended at any time. Judge Heinrichs refused this simple amendment, on the following flawed and defective basis below.

Judge Heinrichs claimed the Challenge was manifestly frivolous as it would have no effect on the case, because the Informant could still lay the charge as a regular person (“any one”) under s. 504 of the Code.  That may be so, but “any one” did not lay a charge, an RCMP officer did, in that capacity. If the RCMP did not have the jurisdiction to exist, an RCMP officer could not use that capacity to lay charges. The charges would have to be re-sworn by him personally and by now they are well out of time to so do.

When asking me for my response after her decision, I told her she completely omitted the primary factor that I told her in my submissions, that if the RCMP have no jurisdiction to exist, they have no power to investigate criminal complaints and obtain the evidence in this case.  Once all evidence is struck for want of jurisdiction, the case fails, whether or not the Informant could still lay a charge as a private citizen or not. Further, absent evidence under s. 507 of the Criminal Code, the JP would have had no power to even issue a summons or warrant.

Judge Heinrichs’s analogy was that if someone is charged under the Criminal Code and applies to strike the Motor Vehicle Act, that it would not have any relevance. That may be, but not where it goes to the jurisdiction of the person or police force laying the charges, or if evidence was obtained illegally as it was here.

She looked at me after my comments about her omission for a few silent seconds, ignored me and said she was going to move to her next judgment.  This issue was intentionally omitted to get this BS judgment. The only place the RCMP should be is above the Arctic Circle – Constitutionally speaking.

This is similar to what the Court has done to me on several occasions, where there is incriminating evidence or arguments. The judges simply ignore them and says, “move on,” thus perpetuating an injustice and from exposing their errors or corruption.

Judge Heinrichs then moved on to the merits of the assault charge. I have maintained throughout the trial that the Crown and witnesses controlled the Judge, not the reverse and one had to be there to see it. Grabavac for the Crown answering my questions to the Judge, the Judge depending on the Crown for the law instead of knowing it herself, witnesses who refused to answer my direct questions, or would answer with circular, non-responsive answers and the Judge would refuse to compel them to answer. Virtually every discretionary decision was made in favour of the Crown, unless the Judge admitted that she would allow it because it made no difference anyway.

From the initial bail hearing two years ago, Grabavac for the Crown has tried to have me banned from all city parks and schools. This of course, was to prevent me from having our protest rallies.

During the initial bail hearing, and throughout disclosure and the trial, Grabavac insisted on advancing the evidence from all his witnesses that on Aug. 11, 2021 one week prior to the Aug. 19 alleged offence date, I was banned from entering Interior Health (IH) by Greg Smith the Professional Liar, security manager for IH. One witness, Taj Smith from Paladin Security, admitted without that no trespass order, they had no power to physically stop me from entering and would have had to allow me in.

Despite this, Judge Heinrichs repeatedly denied me the right to cross examine them on this issue and introduce video evidence to show that the no trespass order was unlawful and Greg Smith lied to the police, and sustaining Grabavac’s ongoing opposition that it had no relevance to whether an assault was committed. If that is so, why was he allowed to lead evidence of this from all witnesses on this point? And if it is relevant evidence to committing the assault, it is relevant for me to prove it was unlawful. Anything raised in evidence is entitled by law to be cross examined upon…including this, and Judge Heinrichs denied this to me, denying me full answer and defence in the process.

Judge Heinrichs allowed evidence from the Crown of being banned as a basis for the charges, but refused to allow me to cross examine and prove the no trespass order was unlawful, and to show my video to prove that Greg Smith was lying on the witness stand, when he told the police on Aug. 11, 2021 that I was banned for causing a disturbance. Just showing Greg Smith was a liar would have been beneficial just for credibility purposes. The video clearly shows that Greg Smith was a professional liar. When Greg Smith says on the stand:

“I have about 30 years experience doing this…I know how to answer questions.”,

you know he means that he is saying he knows how to lie on the stand and get away with it.

On May 25, 2023, I filed a Charter Challenge that the no trespass order was a violation of my s. 2 Charter freedoms. Greg Smith was a gov’t official. Judge Heinrichs subsequently dismissed it without a hearing saying I should have filed this earlier in the year, without saying when of course. How can I file this earlier when I only just heard the evidence in court over the previous few days? Grabavac argued that is the standard for lawyers, and they applied this to me, claiming Charter challenges are usually filed at the beginning of case. But that certainly is not always true – many challenges are brought on during the middle or end of a trial depending on when the evidence gets on the record. It is not a hard rule and there is no law that says all Charter applications must be brought at the beginning of a case. Just read s. 24 of the Charter – it refers to evidence obtained illegally – in many cases this is unknown until a gov’t witness takes the witness stand.

Grabavac repeatedly told Judge Heinrichs, who repeatedly parroted his comments, that there were only four defences to a charge of assault – self defence, automatism, intoxication and accident. This limited my questions of course to only these issues. But there are other defences, and I was lied to by Grabavac and the Judge was ignorant enough to follow him.

Judge Heinrichs dealt with the duties of the Crown to prove its case and how he proved that my moving forward to enter the building was the assault, but failed to address the fact that I was denied full answer and defence because I could not cross-examine on this issue.

Section 265, 266 of the Criminal Code applies where there is an intentional application of force to someone else, without their consent. There is no requirement to prove harm. Legally, this section criminalizes every intentional touching including on buses, subways etc.

Judge Heinrichs relied upon the Crown’s mischaracterization of the incident as being me intentionally touching the security guards. In fact, as I showed in slow motion on the videos, when I attempted to exercise my right of access, they used their upper body torsos to push me back, including Greg Smith’s left arm.

The Judge relies in her decision that the Crown proved that I was not welcome, I knew I was not welcome and that whether this banning was lawful or not, was not part of her decision and she would not rule upon it. Of course not, as it would show THEY assaulted me.

Then she addressed my defence of di minimus which was unknown to me during the trial and which Grabavac lied to the Court by saying there were only four defences. This was the fifth. I provided dozens and dozens of case law that I spent over 100 hours researching, showing that if an assault is so minimal, or trivial, the court will not address it and will find people not guilty. I had case law of a husband assaulting his wife in the home, of people actually getting injuries, and many others that the court all claimed were pretty trivial and dismissed, and yet were much worse than this case.

As you can see in the video I linked to above, there is no violence, no hostility, and everyone including myself, is peaceful. A bit of sound from someone’s boom box and that is all. Police are present, but only because it is standard for these dumb-ass, wimpy security guards to call the police whenever they want. Police have shown up to dozens of our protests, without any problems. They show up at many other protests such as BLM and the LGBTQ protests as well. There is nothing unusual about their presence.

In fact, on Aug. 11, RCMP Corp. Lobb, after talking with Greg Smith, admitted in her evidence that she told me I had this right of access and I could use any time I wanted to talk to reception. I exercised my right of access in part because this senior cop told me I had a right of entry, after she discussed with Smith the Professional Liar. Then they charge me!!

Judge Heinrichs would not apply di mimimus because she claimed it would be a risk to the public interest – without defining that that actually is – as it would sanction an act of defiance to authority, and I could be a catalyst for others. Really?

Judge Heinrichs claimed that a police officer told me he would arrest me if I tried to enter, only because he believed that Greg Smith lawfully told him I was banned. Smith of course never verified this or that it was lawfully done. I am under no obligation to obey any police officer’s threats of arrest if I had not broken the law. Besides, he told me I would be arrested for entering the building (ie: trespass), not for an assault.

Think about this – the Crown’s entire case is based on the Crown’s evidence that Greg Smith the Professional Liar issued a no trespass warning a week earlier to support their actions to block my right of entry and lied to the police, I am prohibited from attacking and cross-examining on this, and Judge Heinrichs then rules that I am defying authority on this unlawful no trespass order as the basis for refusing to apply this applicable defence??? No judge can be this dumb. It can only be pure, 100% bias or compromise.

50+ middle aged peaceful protestors, most of whom were not even in this area, with a peaceful history of protesting for three years and somehow my action of exercising my right of access is going to be a catalyst for others to defy authority? This is a fiction – it is deeming. There was no evidence put to the court that anyone else was going to defy authority, or of any history of so doing. And who is authority? Greg Smith? He had no power to arbitrarily ban me for no reason at all, and the cops never did either.

Judge Heinrichs claims by analogy that this is not like jostling on a bus – where there is no intent. This is wrong – many people on buses and subways, intentionally push people out of the way in a rush to get on the transportation, or to get off. This happens every day. This really is a stupid and inapplicable analogy. But not surprisingly.

Judge Heinrichs ignored the defence of officially induced error in her judgment, by Corp. Lobb telling me on Aug. 11, that I had a right of entry and could do so even at the Aug. 19 protest. She told me this after she talked to witness Greg Smith, so he knew she would be telling me this too and never told me Smith, the Professional Liar, opposed it.

Importantly, Judge Heinrichs completely left out the fact that there was no evidence of any animus, or hostility on my part – another element of the offence that Grabavac intentionally left off the court record. I provided case law to the Judge that the Crown must provide evidence of some form of hostility or anger on my part to assault someone to get a conviction. The Judge admits that me and the security guards were having a calm discussion at this time. The videos all confirm that there was no evidence of hostility which is why Judge Heinrichs intentionally did not address this in her judgment. The Crown failed to prove this requirement – and even refused to bring it to the attention to the Judge during the trial. Grabavac thought I would not discover this, but I did.

Everything that could be done to convict, was done. The fix was in from the very beginning.

Mr. Grabavac repeatedly lied to the Judge and me, by claiming in court that there were only four defences to an assault charge. He lied by failing to let the Judge know he had to prove hostility as well. The Judge sanctioned this, sending the message to all prosecutors that lying in Court is acceptable by refusing to even hear my application to have Grabavac cited for contempt, and even refusing to read my Affidavit evidence to support this. I spent a lot of time preparing this, not for her to just dismiss it without even considering my evidence.

Sadly, it gets worse. In Jordan, the SCC ruled 18 months to judgment for a hearing on a summary conviction matter. Charges were laid Dec. 8, 2021, and 18 months ended June 8, 2023. The judgment was issued Dec. 13, 2023 or over 24 months later. Judge Heinrichs denied my Jordan s. 11(b) Charter delay application because she wanted me to pay almost $5 000.00 in transcripts, to the monopolistic J.C. Word Assist transcribers, who have an exclusive contract with the Province that only they can produce criminal transcripts. I have a friend who is a court accepted, certified transcriber and I could have done this for a tiny fraction of this cost and was denied this ability to so do. This is pure theft and selling justice, contrary to our common law and Constitution.

When I advised Judge Heinrichs I could not afford them, she wanted me to provide proof of my private and confidential, financial situation. That is not going to happen. This right to justice then becomes a qualified privilege and further then becomes part of the public record, open for all the world to see. Think about this in your life how you would feel if anyone, anyone, knew of your personal financial situation, especially people you didn’t know. Or other government agencies. This can haunt you for decades even if there is nothing to hide, so to speak.

So, she allowed the Crown to break the law because I won’t give up my privacy rights for the possibility (she could still refuse my request to order the Crown to pay for them anyway) of her ordering the Crown to pay for them, and agree that they can sell justice.

The judge are in on this too. The Supreme Court judges do not want to hear myriads of appeals from minor traffic tickets, or summary conviction Provincial offences matters. So, they rely upon these super high, thieving transcripts fees to deter people from appeal them to they don’t have to hear this minor stuff – but which of course is incredibly important to the accused. Who can afford to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lawyer on a traffic ticket, then more thousands for an appeal if they are screwed in trial court, plus thousands of dollars in transcripts, where the fine may only be less than $1000, but may have serious repercussions in others areas of one’s life? Judges bank on these transcripts fees (as does the Crown) to keep us out of the court system as much as possible.

The Crown got caught further lying here, by telling the Judge that a large part of the delay was my fault for refusing to be available for a June 22, 2022 trial date that was proposed in May, 2022. What Grabavac intentionally failed to mention, as I have the documents to prove and he admits he has a copy, was that on May 18, 2022, Judge MacParland ordered us to set trial dates, yes, but they had to be at least one month ahead of the hearing of my disclosure request to be set (see a copy of this below). So, we could not legally set a trial date for June 22, 2022 because another Judge ordered one month earlier that we could not do so. That was the true reason and Grabavac again got caught lying to the Judge and was allowed to get away with it. It was not possible on May 18 to set a disclosure review hearing to be heard within four days by May 22, to allow for a June 22 two day trial.

Grabavac tried to file new materials on Monday December 11, 2023, which the Judge did not allow because she had her ruling done in his favour anyway. But these submissions contained further lies that I have more documents to prove were false. There is no low that Grabavac will not stoop to, in order to convict and jail me. Because the Judge would not allow him to provide his written submissions, I was unable to show how and where Grabavac was lying to the Judge again.

The allegation of contempt of court, is being remedied by permitting me to purge the contempt by a written apology. I have done this. This is a catch-22 set up. If I don’t agree, they will sentence me to further time in jail. If I provide this apology, which must include comments that I will obey court orders in the future, then when the Crown applies at sentencing for a DNA sample and I refuse to provide one, they will lay further charges of failing to comply with a court order and possibly reinstitute the contempt charge again too. The trap is being set yet again.

Sentencing hearing will be April 12, 2024 at 9:30 at the Kelowna Law Courts. Sentencing may be that day or on a future date, but all submissions will be on this day. Crown wants an unspecified jail term, unspecified probation order (likely to ban me from all parks and schools so I can’t appear at the rallies), a no weapons order, and a DNA sample. Grabavac is seriously abusing his power and breaching the duties of his office for this non-offence which is completely, politically motivated.

We will see what happens in this new year. I simply join the ranks of Pastor Art, Tamara Lich, the Coutts boys, and many others who have been falsely attacked in the “just-us” system, for opposing the corruption in our governments. (George Carlin: “It’s a big club, and YOU ain’t in it!”) But if jailed, I will get out and continue in our quest for freedom against the tyrannical governments and just-us system participants.

An appeal is being filed this week to this conviction. Unsure about a sentencing appeal until the sentence is actually delivered.

Legal assistance

Despite my efforts, they are still demanding now $16 000.00 in transcripts fees for this appeal. Some of these fees are up to $1 800.00/day!!! I am fortunate that I do not have any lawyers involved and am able to do all this work on my own. Having lawyers on this stupid, falsified charge, for eight (8) days of trial and more appearances prior to trial, would have easily run another $20 000.00+. It does not appear yet that I can have these transcripts paid for by the Court/Government. Unfortunately, as a result, I will have no choice but to begin seeking assistance to help pay for these transcripts over the next few months. I am grateful we already have some gifts provided to assist with this. I will let everyone know once this is all set up. Believe me, no one hates paying for these transcripts to these glorified extortionists more than I do and I have fought them for 20+ years on this monopolistic, obstruction of justice tactic. However, I (we) must get justice and it can now only be done on appeal. The implications are astounding where in the future the Crown will charge everyone for merely touching someone, even if they are in the wrong.

They should have a law that upon any successful appeal, the Crown and Judge must bear all the costs. I suspect that there would not be as many appeals and more justice would happen in the court of first instance, as is our right.

We will also now begin to have some transcript production costs in response to the Petition to ban our rallies. So far we have kept costs to a bare minimum, again thanks to not having legal fees, but there will some associated costs in the new few months to begin to have our opposition heard.