Recently, Tom Kennedy brought to my attention the fact that Richard Warman, who continually refers to himself as an Ottawa based lawyer, has been harassing many people in the freedom movement whose views he disagrees with and had been sending letters to various halls and locations where Tom was having meetings, and subsequently Tom and myself, These letters and/or emails we designed to trying to get the hosts to cancel our meetings.

In these letters, Mr. Warman, lawyer, has characterized both Tom and myself as being in the "detax" movement, promulgating this as if this was an offence punishable by the rule of law. Mr. Warman, lawyer, further alleges, directly or indirectly, that both myself and Tom are "..related to groups in the US that have resorted to violence." No meaning was given to the word 'detax' in his correspondence.  Does he mean the 'detax' group whom I believe are not together anymore?  Does he mean simply people who refuse to pay their unlawful, usury-based extortion and racketeering taxes?

A wise man once said, in upholding the common law principle of freedom of speech (as opposed to statutory right), "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Mr. Warman, lawyer, has every right to disagree with what I say, but he does not possess the right to libel me and to extort actions from others to support his lawfully
unsupported viewpoints as he has done herein.

Mr. Warman's (lawyer) statements about myself and Tom are libellous and wholly without merit, totally false. Mr. Warman (lawyer) has stated in his letters to the various locations of our meetings, that he is a lawyer from Ottawa and has "..interest in anti-racism and human rights issues."

What does protesting against taxes have to do with racism? Why did Mr. Warman, lawyer, send out his repeated letters claiming that he is a lawyer and not use his letterhead to this effect? Anyone seeing his letters certainly would be scared into cancelling meetings and in fact have so done, undoubtedly believing that Mr. Warman, being a lawyer from Ottawa, probably
works for the feds, and indeed he has so done in the past. So people then immediately believe that this man is working for the DOJ and it is a letter from the government telling them to close down the hatches to us; if not, then why even mention that he is a lawyer from Ottawa? Of what relevance is this to his comments if he is not in this capacity at the time of his letters being sent? Mr. Warman, lawyer, is counselling people to commit a breach of contract.

As a result of his letters, both myself and Tom laid criminal charges against this Mr. Warman, lawyer, of libel and extortion under s.298 and 346 of the Criminal Code, respectively. I appeared as Tom's agent, both in provincial court and in the Superior Court of Justice as noted below. In the first instance, the Justice of the Peace refused to issue process. As a
result, I immediately filed for an order in the nature of mandamus compelling the JP to rehear the matter again and issue process. (Mandamus is a prerogative writ issued from a superior court to an inferior tribunal or judicial officer who fails to perform a duty that they are required by law to do, compelling him to do so.) In other words, it means you erred in politically and judicially correct terminology.

The Superior Court Justice Lalonde, after hearing my evidence on how the JP erred in not issuing process, found in his judgment that "I think you can prove your thing, maybe, very likely all the way through, but I was wondering why you didn't go after that man for damages. Maybe you intend to do that too." In other words, just on the evidence before the Superior
Court Justice, we have enough evidence to probably convict this Mr. Warman, lawyer!!! I have not filed civil action as of yet due to the immediate costs involved, which in no way derogates from the criminal element of Mr. Warman's (lawyer) actions. The justice then went on to state: "All right. Mr. Lindsay, you've convinced me. .. The evidence before Mr. Binda is likely to justify a charge of defamatory libel under s. 298 of the Code and extortion under s. 346 of the Code." The justice then issued the order in the nature of mandamus and sent it back to the JP.

Both myself and Tom appeared before the JP on Friday, August 30th, 2002 here in Ottawa. As a result of our successful mandamus application, process was issued on 3 charges against Mr. Warman, lawyer, with the JP feeling that the charge of extortion need only be in one of our names as it was the same letter that constituted the same offence. The JP, recognizing the decision of the superior court justice, now has determined that there is indeed enough evidence to bring Mr. Warman to trial on these charges. Two charges of libel, one from myself and one from Tom, and one of extortion by Tom.

Richard Warman, Ottawa lawyer, has now been officially charged with libel under s. 298 and extortion under s. 346 of the Criminal Code, both by myself and Tom Kennedy. Mr. Warman, lawyer, is required to appear personally at court on Sept 20, 2002. We are proceeding by indictment so he will have to appear personally to the charges, even if he has another lawyer representing him. I have forwarded all documentation to the Crown today and was told by the front clerk that no Crown's were available to talk to me except an articling student!! hmmmm, a sign of things to come????

Anyway, I will return to the Crown's office next Thursday to discuss the matter and leave my contact info with someone there. If the actions of the Crown in Tom's previous charges against his ex wife in a domestic matter are relevant, (process was issued here as well, against another Ottawa lawyer!!) this could present a problem as they adjourned his charges 5 times since process was issued before withdrawing them despite the accused's prima facie documentary evidence of lying on an affidavit. This is documented affidavit evidence, not oral.

Did anyone ever fail to notice how easy it is to charge the average John Doe on the street, and how virtually impossible it is to successfully charge someone in the gov't, police or justice systems, no matter how blatant the criminal offence may be? They all seem to clamour over themselves to cover it all up and prevent their own kind from being charged and convicted, all with noble words of praise and honour in so doing of course. Lawyers and politicians it seems, always make errors in judgment, never criminal activity!! Injustice in the extreme.

I truly hope that the Crown and their staff begin to act in a more positive and professional manner in this case. The clerk at the front seemed quite indifferent to me simply because the police had not laid the charge or that I had not gone to the police. So what??? The police do not have a monopoly on the laying of criminal charges (as of yet anyway, though with the recent
changes to the Criminal Code, now the Attorney General will decide, prior to any evidence even being made public, whether charges will go through against gov't officials. We must now also give them notice of any charges, all of course to permit them to contact the gov't official charged to prepare a defence early on and stash any incriminating documentation.) The charges
against Mr. Warman, lawyer, filed under the same section of law that they have to file their charges under in most cases.

Further, these cops for the most part never have the process hearing required by law under s. 507; the JP's simply ignore it across the country, yet they compel each of us to have one, but that is another story. In my case, I not only finally got the JP
to issue process, I have a superior court justice admitting on record that we have serious chance of proving our case at trial against Mr. Warman, lawyer. It is clear that the clerks of the Crown's office here in Ottawa, as with other centres, are so deficient in law as to be almost useless, outside the numbered procedures that they are required to follow. If there is an
unusual case, they simply don't know what the hell todo except as they are told, and refer it to someone on the lower end of the experience scale.

How could there be no Crown Prosecutors (gov't officials) in the office to talk to, especially at 12:30 and 2 PM on a Friday afternoon on a long weekend in the nation's capital? Nah, just a coincidence. Am I ticked off? I'll let you decide that one!! Speaking of which, you really have to be here on a Friday afternoon to see the rush hour start just after lunch with gov't officials taking the afternoons off. It is quite a sight compared to the traffic at the same times on other days of the week. Something most people are not privy to.

I don't know how the Crown will proceed in this matter and probably won't for a few weeks or months. They can either assume the prosecution themselves, let us prosecute the matter, or stay the charges. Considering the fact that the Crown doesn't like to charge one of their own kind, this is going to be an uphill battle for them to fulfil their alleged role as public prosecutor in this matter, as one Ottawa area lawyer has already confidentially told us. The Crown, ie DOJ, doesn't want to convict one of their own former employees with these charges, we were told, especially when doing so will expose the very corruption we are trying to bring to light for all to see. If the Crown attempts to stay these charges, they can rest be assured that I still have more arguments and tactics to use against them to expose any such actions for what they would be, a simple attempt to deny us justice and protect real criminals from their actions.

Remember, if a man commits murder and is never found, does this mean he is not a criminal????? If a man commits murder and is set free on an error, misinterpretation, or by threats to the judiciary, Crown, jury etc., does this mean he is not a criminal????? In similar manner, if the Crown decides to stay this matter, res ipsa liquetor, (the facts speak for themselves), it will be nothing more than a complete attempt for another (!!!!!) cover up. The people have already seen the actions of the Crown in many other provinces in relation to our actions in exposing taxation and banking fraud in this country. The actions of the Crown in these provinces has been nothing short of harassment, intimidation and fraud.

Richard Warman, lawyer, has committed criminal actions as briefly defined herein and I state so publicly. He has completely lied and fabricated statements about myself. Whether or not he is convicted is irrelevant to the context of whether or not he has committed criminal actions, though he better be convicted.

So now process is issued. We will keep everyone posted as to the future outcome of these events. This will be an important case in stopping these people who are using libel, extortion and outright lies to misrepresent what we stand for in their corrupt attempts to silence us and keep the truth from coming to the people about the criminal taxation and banking systems in this
country.

I further challenge Mr. Warman, lawyer, to a public debate, anytime anywhere in any Province at any location, on the lawfulness of the alleged federal Income Tax Act and our de facto federal government. Mr. Warman, lawyer, continually and publically criticizes and libels people like myself for exposing this fraud; well Mr. Warman, lawyer, put your writing where
your mouth is. Take me up on my challenge, anywhere. I'll meet you, before as many thousands of people as can attend. I
am not the first one to issue this type of challenge, and why is it that none of these people who denounce our lawful views will ever talk publicly WITH us, as opposed to against us, as where, in the W-5 choreographed biased garbage, I was denied by CTV the right to respond to anything the gov't and judicial speakers had to say. That is the only reason I denied CTV on 6 separate occasions that I was contacted, to appear on their show. I saw that program as a biased piece of journalist inaccuracy.

Let's hope and pray the Crown will still do their job and put all the facts properly and completely before the judge for a proper and lawful decision. In this manner, there can only be a finding of guilt. Let myself and Tom give the judge victim impact statements!!!! Let's hope and pray that if any attempts are made by anyone to influence the Crown or judiciary, that
appropriate action is taken immediately.  It is wise to keep in mind that Richard Warman, lawyer, worked in the past (and may still on a contract or other basis) with the DOJ and probably knows everybody, including superiors who make the decisions in these types of matters).  Now what would a reasonable man, knowing all these facts, come to think?????

Neither myself nor Tom are "connected" to any violent groups anywhere, either here, the US or anywhere in the world. These types of comments are purely outrageous and false, wholly designed to scare people into breaching a contract and cancelling meetings which expose the corruption by the gov't and bankers. It's not going to last anymore. We have had too many meetings cancelled as a result of this type of activity and we are now fighting back to expose the criminal activity of those people who commit such actions. I don't mind lawful dissent, but these allegations by Mr. Warman, lawyer, are completely lacking in substance and merit so as to constitute criminal activity within the sections so charged by us. His use of his profession is, in my opinion, although we did not charge him with anything in respect of same, may also constitute fraud and misrepresentation.

If Mr. Warman, lawyer, can use the title of lawyer to scare people, then I'm sure he won't mind the use of lawyer in describing him in this subject title, or any press attention he might receive.

All the best
Dave Lindsay
Tommy-Usury: Free otherwise known as Tom-Joseph: Kennedy

"The government cannot lawfully deny the rights of the people."