{"id":9928,"date":"2024-09-10T17:01:09","date_gmt":"2024-09-10T21:01:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=9928"},"modified":"2024-09-10T17:01:09","modified_gmt":"2024-09-10T21:01:09","slug":"updates-on-dave-lindsay-appeal-kelowna-attempt-to-ban-freedom-rallies-rallies-in-the-okanagan-september-14-kelowna-ok-falls-kamloops-oliver","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=9928","title":{"rendered":"UPDATES ON DAVE LINDSAY APPEAL; KELOWNA ATTEMPT TO BAN FREEDOM RALLIES; RALLIES IN THE OKANAGAN — September 14 Kelowna, OK Falls, Kamloops, Oliver"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

“It Ain\u2019t Over”<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

————————————–<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

————————————–<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Completed<\/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

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

\u21d2 Donations \u21d0<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

September 9, 2024 2:00 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This hearing is brief and only to set a date for my appeal hearing, and to determine how it is to proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I hope to proceed on the Jordan<\/em> delay part of the appeal first. If I am successful the rest doesn\u2019t matter and there is no use trying to raise funds for transcripts I may not yet need.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With thanks to everyone for all your previous help, I have all the transcripts required for the Jordan<\/em> appeal. I have not ordered the actual trial transcripts, hoping I will not need them. Their cost is incredible and hopefully will not be required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

September 10, 2024 — 2:00 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notice of Application to be released from jail until the appeal itself is fully heard<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crown Persecutor Grabavac will undoubtedly oppose this and the appeal on every technicality and falsified grounds he can find.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

I would like to just begin once again by thanking God and Jesus for their protection in court, so that I remain able to still write to you today!!! Everyone\u2019s prayers once again, made a big difference against the evils we are up against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, I also would like to once again thank all of you so very much for all your kind support, in and outside of the courthouse. Some of you came from far away and I know many are watching intensely across the country. Your ongoing moral support is what will keep me going to preserve our rights and freedoms as well. Surrender is not an option!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My appeal has now been filed to the Court of Appeal on the contempt conviction. My reading of the case law in this area at this Court, is supporting of my position, which is comforting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This won\u2019t be heard likely until early spring, but I will file my documents on our website as they are completed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

————————————–<\/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

December 3, 4, 5, 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

<\/a> 4<\/strong>(1)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a proceeding, a person against whom the proceeding has been brought may apply for a dismissal order under subsection (2) on the basis that<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. <\/a> the proceeding arises from an expression made by the applicant, and<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. <\/a> the expression relates to a matter of public interest.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    <\/a> (2) If the applicant satisfies the court that the proceeding arises from an expression referred to in subsection (1), the court must make a dismissal order unless the respondent satisfies the court that<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. <\/a> there are grounds to believe that<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      1. <\/a> the proceeding has substantial merit, and<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. <\/a> the applicant has no valid defence in the proceeding, and<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. <\/a> the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the applicant’s expression is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        I must show we had expression at our rallies, which related to a matter of public interest. I have provided so much evidence, hundreds of pages, in addition to videos, that it is almost unfathomable to think the City will claim otherwise. The City is already admitted that our expressions were a matter of public interest but are claiming that the Petition did not arise from our expressions, but from our refusal to get a permit to have an event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        We had four days before the Hon. Justice Hardwick last week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Justice Hardwick has shown herself to be at least, a diligent listener. She has read our materials and taken keen notice of various points being raised. She has been respectful at all times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The City is claiming we are having an event at our protests\/rallies, because we are using sound amplification equipment, our CLEAR Canopy (they call a tent), having signs, and selling merchandise. These factors were decided upon in a secret meeting with Bylaw Officer Short and his supervisor, Ken Hunter, and were never made public. Laws must be fixed and certain and this certainly fails to meet this test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The first problem the City is facing, is that admittedly by the City in evidence, these factors also exist at all public protests. These are called hybrid <\/em>facts as they can apply to either activity. So how is one to decide if an activity is an event regulated or prohibited under the Bylaws, or a Constitutionally protected freedom of assembly and protest upon just these hybrid factors?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Justice Hardwick did comment to the City that it was going to have a hard time convincing her that our CLEAR Canopy was a tent as alleged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The problem the City also faces is that Kevin Mead for the City has admitted under oath that I \/ CLEAR are not selling anything. And I have not been deputized by the City to enforce its Bylaws on anyone who might be so doing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        As a result, already 2\/4 factors the City was relying upon, do not exist. Having signs has been readily acknowledged by the SCC as being part of freedom of expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The issue really comes down to the use of sound equipment. The City wants to stop this because it is our most effective method of communication. Alternatively, in a worse case situation, this may be (which is strongly denied) a bylaw infraction, but this does not magically turn our protests into an event (which is undefined in the Bylaws.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Further, the City is claiming that I have to obtain a permit under the Outdoor Events Bylaw<\/em> for an event under the Parks Bylaw<\/em>. This is absurd and there is no mention in either Bylaw that one applies to the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Both Bylaws require that the City must own or lease the land, ie: at Stuart Park. However, the BCSC ruled in 2008 that the Simpson Covenants imposed a trust upon the City over this land at Stuart Park. Consequently, the requirement to get permits for events\/outdoor events does not apply because the City does not own or lease the property as required in the bylaws, it is a trustee in law. The Judge was aware of this, and so far, I have seen nothing from the City to counter this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Moreover, the 2008 BCSC judgment, held that commercial activities cannot occur in Stuart Park. This immediately prohibits the City from issuing permits for events, because events by their nature, are generally if not exclusively, commercial in nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        I had no choice but to express a concern to City counsel recently. They were upset that this was taking me a long time in court. There is a lot of evidence to go through, and it as if only lawyers can take days in court and if one is not a lawyer, their representations should not take long. That of course is legally incorrect, but lawyers do not like attention to detail \u2013 they thrive on generalities, because that is where fraud lurks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        I think I now know why. I filed my SLAPP application to strike the City\u2019s Petition. I was very detailed with the cases, paragraphs and principles I was referencing. The City filed its Response, with only 11 cases, and no paragraphs being referenced, leaving me uncertain as to where to look in the cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        On Friday afternoon, in addition to other definitions and evidence, I made reference to a BC statute that defines what a protest is, ie: a disapproval of something. Events of course do not have this essential requirement. Counsel advised that this was in their Book of Authorities, however this was never provided to myself or Lloyd and we knew nothing of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        There were 34 cases in these Authorities, and only 11 in their Response, meaning that I would never have known of these remaining 23 cases if I hadn\u2019t raised this statute in court. The City was planning on giving me a copy of their Authorities as soon as they started speaking. This means I would have had no way of knowing of these other 23 cases to permit me to research them and reply. In law, this is called, trial by ambush<\/em> and it is contrary to natural justice and procedural fairness, which require that I am entitled to know their case prior to the hearing, not being surprised during the hearing itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Further, they included three cases about me personally from the long past. The problem is that these cases and what was decided in them were not pleaded by the City in its Response and cannot now be used at all. (and their findings were unsupported \u2013 but that is another issue.) They were inserted only to bias the Judge against me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        I have emailed counsel for the City and requested that they remove these three cases or I will apply on Dec. 3 to have them removed. Also, to provide me with the paragraphs and principles that they are relying upon in the other 23 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        I do not like being surprised like this. I have treated counsel with respect this entire proceeding and this type of action really makes me angry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        So, we\u2019ll see what the City\u2019s response is sometime this week. That is where we stand right now.<\/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>

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