{"id":9733,"date":"2024-06-21T23:04:54","date_gmt":"2024-06-22T03:04:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=9733"},"modified":"2024-06-21T23:05:37","modified_gmt":"2024-06-22T03:05:37","slug":"legal-updates-in-the-okanagan-david-lindsay-freedom-rallies-june-22-kelowna-vernon-ok-falls-oliver","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=9733","title":{"rendered":"Legal Updates in the Okanagan, David Lindsay, Freedom Rallies June 22 — Kelowna, Vernon, OK Falls & Oliver"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt Ain\u2019t Over\u201d<\/strong><\/em>Freedom activists are critical thinkers!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our society is so dumbed down and indoctrinated that anyone who is a critical thinker is labeled as a Conspiracy Theorist<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Did you know: The term \u2018conspiracy theorist\u2019 was first coined and used by the CIA to ridicule anyone who opposed the gov\u2019t narrative?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kelowna Courts<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Falsified assault charge<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kelowna Courthouse<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

R v David Lindsay<\/strong><\/em> s. 266 <\/strong>Criminal Code<\/strong><\/em> Assault<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next Provincial Court Hearing Date:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

July 10, 2024 9:30 a.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sentencing Judgment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thank you for all your support and belief for freedom!!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remember the Freedom Principle<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An attack against one is an attack against all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An attack against all, is an attack against one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Update on June 13, hearing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crown Persecutor<\/strong> David Grabavac continues to seek three years probation, 9-12 months in jail, and a 10 year weapons ban.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Make no mistake \u2013 unless I win on appeal \u2013 this implies that anyone who touches a gov\u2019t official could go to jail. Case in point \u2013 look at the Rebel News reporter David Menzies incident, where the RCMP intentionally pushed into Menzies and they arrest and charge him! This is our future if I lose on appeal \u2013 gov\u2019t officials will attack us and we will be charged!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grabavac has backed off on the DNA sample due to the statistics I provided the Judge showing that only 12.5% of assault charges result in a DNA sample, and those are usually the most violent of assaults. As well as the fact that this incident was so minor he could not even provide legal or factual justification for his request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During trial, Grabavac was continually looking back and exchanging smiles and visual clues with Castanet, INFONews and other reporters. Grabavac is using the media as his own public publication company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grabavac continues his quest unabated to have me jailed for four months on the contempt charge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crown is still pressing this issue, claiming that my apology was a lie, due to comments I made on Action4Canada in March, one month prior to filing my revised apology letter, about the lack of independence and bias of the judiciary in my case. Another attack on freedom of expression by Grabavac. It was entered solely to get the judge consciously or unconsciously vengeful against me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I told Heinrichs that she had already ruled the contempt can be purged with my letter and she cannot now go and change that, or accept new evidence (functus<\/em>), and there was no application from Grabavac to do so. The contempt was for failing to comply with a court order and telling her I didn\u2019t have to. These recent comments on Tanya\u2019s show were made outside of court and J. Heinrichs has no jurisdiction for contempt ex facie<\/em> and Grabavac cannot introduce new evidence on a previous decision made. Grabavac\u2019s sole purpose was to bias the judge even more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grabavac raised my interview with Tanya in March, 2024 and my comments about the judge being biased and compromised and other quotes from this interview and from Tanya, to show that I had not purged the contempt. The contempt in fact only had to do with whether I would comply with court orders or not, which I have. I never made any mention in this interview of disobeying court orders. Then Grabavac claimed that because Heinrichs said I had one hour for representations today and I went longer (she let me without notice or warning), it shows I had lied in the apology letter to comply with court orders. Meanwhile, Heinrichs gave Grabavac 20 min to reply, and he took 2 \u00bd hours. He said at 12:30 he would be 30 min in the afternoon, and took 90 min.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crown also argued that the fact that I said Smith had no power to ban me from the building, was not relevant. Grabavac said even God cannot override Smith\u2019s power to ban me. This issue was relevant to sentencing as it showed my motives for trying to enter the building. Get this, I wanted my affidavit to go on the record for sentencing. The Judge said this would open me up to cross examination. I said sure, I was prepared to be cross examined. Then she backtracked and said she would not let me give my affidavit evidence, or oral. That was a big error \u2013 denying me my right to introduce evidence at sentencing??!!!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She would not let me play the Aug 11 video showing and tender as an Exhibit, showing Smith assaulting Leo without provocation and then lying to the police that I caused a disturbance to ban me. My video however, shows that Smith lied of course and no disturbance was caused. This is relevant to my motives for entering and reasons why I did what I did. Not for personal gain, but because I believed that there was no authority for him to block me. I had excellent quotes on this in relation to sentencing as well from a court case. It is a judicially recognized mitigating factor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But he allowed Grabavac to put Tanya\u2019s show into evidence as an exhibit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, J. Heinrichs would not allow this or my two videos from Sept. 13 and 29, 2021 IH protests to show that no further offences have occurred after the Aug 19 incident, and IH had no security concerns. I had other videos and she claimed I could not enter those because I should have done so earlier in the day. I did try, but she shut me down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge wants to know if I would be acceptable to an ankle bracelet if conditional sentencing is imposed \u2013 this telling me that she is going to throw me in the hoosegow on July 10, which is sentencing day. This tells me that she has already started to work on the judgment prior to today\u2019s date as she cannot go through the evidence and submissions and write this judgment in three weeks \u2013 or else has another judge helping her which is possible as she is a family court judge. This is just amazing for this 1.5 fleeting touching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grabavac is talking on and on to ring up transcripts costs as well. Adjourned to July 10. I obtained info from probation on ankle bracelets \u2013 only to discover Grabavac had called them in advance to advise that I was coming. What else did they discuss?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So much happened in court it was unbelievable. Grabavac attacked the gallery, and virtually everyone who filed a supporting character reference letter. He submitted pix of signs from our rally claiming that they were rude and offensive. \u201cYou can shove your masks up Bonnie Henry\u2019s ass<\/em>\u201d caught his attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I coined a new term in court: Grabavism<\/strong>. He seemed proud of this was smiling at the reporter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is where a prosecutor argues to the court, that gov\u2019t officials can place orders or demands on people even without authorization at law to do so, and if you don\u2019t comply, or try and exercise your rights, freedoms or privileges, you will be charged and thrown in jail. Even if the official had no power to issue the demands or orders at law. Characterized by intense misrepresentation of facts or law to support this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is: Grabavism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is the complete destruction of the rule of law in Canada<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of helping me get my evidence and submissions on the record as required by law, Heinrichs pulled every trick and every decision possible to prevent me from doing so. Grabavac of course, got all his evidence on the record, and I got none.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appeal will be interesting to say the least.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next Supreme Court Appeal Hearing Date:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

July 22, 2024 \u2014 10:00 a.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notice of Conviction Appeal Hearing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This hearing date will be to set the agenda for the hearing of the appeal from the conviction of J. Heinrichs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

City of Kelowna v David Lindsay et al<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petition to Stop Rallies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

June 19, 20, 21, 2024 10:00 a.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1355 Water St.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kelowna Courthouse<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

for hearing on my SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) application to strike the City\u2019s Petition against us. (See the B.C. Protection of Public Participation Act<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca\/civix\/document\/id\/complete\/statreg\/19003<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I urge everyone who can make it out to come. This is an extremely important case where the City is trying to shut down all rallies unless you have their permission. All your freedom of expression rights are on the line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have recently been provided from a reliable source, excellent supporting information about the positive results of the protests outside vaccination clinics, by Bruce, Linda, Penny and many others. Without this feedback, people might be led to believe we are having no effect. We now know just what an amazing impact they had.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But we are!! We have had an effect far beyond what the eyes can see. This hearing will cost the City between $10-$20 000.00, just for this week!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That they would be spending this amount of moolah on little ol\u2019 us, is just nuts, unless they are an underlying motive just to ban us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why? Why would they go to all this effort to ban our rallies, unless we did and continue to have a major impact upon people. Being in the public eye is critical. Out of sight, out of mind applies otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Local Judge Hardwick, appointed two years ago by Trudeau, will be the judge in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BC Supreme Court starts at 10:00 a.m., not 9:30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three days<\/strong> have been set aside to hear my SLAPP application. Lloyd will also be present to make his representations as well. I am unclear how we will be proceeding and there will undoubtedly some preliminary issues to be discussed as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I expect to be going first and talking all day Wed and into Thursday at some point. Then Lloyd, than the City. Whether we get done in three days or not is unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Elizabeth Anderson, counsel for the City will not be appearing. Instead, two lawyers, local lawyer Barry Williamson and Vancouver lawyer Nick Falzon will be appearing for the City.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is the bio for Williamson:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barry, is an associate counsel with Young, Anderson, having retired from the partnership at the end of 2023. Before joining the firm in 1991 Barry spent several years as a prosecutor with the Province\u2019s Crown Counsel office, followed by four years as in-house counsel with the City of Vancouver\u2019s Law Department. As trial and appeal counsel at the firm, he has represented local governments on such diverse subjects as employment, contract, negligence, bylaw, expropriation, enforcement, constitutional and bad faith issues. Barry has taught municipal law subjects at the UBC Law School, the Justice Institute\u2019s Bylaw Enforcement course and at the Capilano College Local Government Administration course. He was formerly the Vice President of the B.C. Expropriation Association and has made presentations to that group and the Municipal Law subsection of the BC Branch of the Canadian Bar Association. He co-authored with Greg Cockrill an article dealing with freedom of expression on municipal property which appeared in Municipal Lawyer, the publication of IMLA, the International Municipal Lawyers Association<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our documents in this case are located on our website at:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
David<\/a><\/blockquote>