""The Law was made for man, not man for the Law"... :John-R: Dempsey, 1976   

 :John-R: Dempsey is a forensic litigation specialist and criminologist. His preferred areas of law are: white collar crimes, government corruption, and fraudulent banking practice. Due to the Law Society of British Columbia's claim that they have a monopoly on the word "lawyer," he prefers to call himself a Forensic Litigation Specialist. 

Hominum cause jus constitutum est (Law is established for the benefit of man).

John by choice is not a member of any BAR association or law society. He does not "practice" law and therefore he does it for real and he does not represent his clients for money. He represents people as an independent representative in order to avoid any conflict of interest between himself, his principals, and the powers that be, namely, the governments, financial institutions, BAR associations and law societies. He pledges allegiance to no one but his CREATOR. He believes that true righteousness or justice is a free gift from God. He adheres faithfully to his motto: "MY GOD IS MY RIGHT."

As an independent legal specialist, listed below are the things John is not and will never be the lawyer who:

• Prosecute on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service or Canada Revenue Agency in order to imprison anyone for "failing to file" their income taxes.
• Be appointed or foisted upon you by a judge upon your being accused of any crime.
• Reject your filing of private documents into public record.
• Initiate and file criminal complaints against anyone.
• Confiscate property and funds from marital partners nor dictate child custody during divorce proceedings.
• Regulate private property via land use, planning laws and codes.
• Advise employers to confiscate funds by way of withholding tax from paycheques.
• Approve the confiscation and kidnapping by child protection agents of children from their families.
• Initiate foreclosure proceedings on behalf of banks and mortgage companies when you miss a few payments on purported "debts" you never received.
• Initiate debt collection proceedings on behalf of financial institutions who "advance credit" by way of counterfeit, electronic digital money (or "money" created out of nothing).
• Confiscate your property when property taxes are not paid.
• Pilfer your estate by way of probate after you or your love one dies.
• Turn into a "crime" an activity which has been natural and lawful for centuries, yet due to new legislation or statutes, now requires licensing.
• Initiate actions against you for committing a crime which until recently was a lawful activity.
• Reap hefty fees for exaggerating personal injury claims causing insurance premiums to skyrocket.
• Claim to be able to handle personal disputes better than those involved.
• Complicate simple contracts between two parties where simple contracts become completely incomprehensible.
• File unnecessary, embellished paperwork for what would normally be considered simple claims.
• Depersonalize and complicate intimate processes such as adoptions.
• Be the only one allowed into a jail cell even though a friend or relative might be better to assist you.
• Play both sides of the court.
• Be a member of a BAR that police itself, in charge of accredititions of law schools, determine the curriculum in law schools by granting or refusing accreditition, make and enforce laws designed to work only for himself, make and enforce statutes which are impossible not to violate because there are millions of them.
• Be the power behind all agencies which control the rest of you.
• Be a henchman and revenue collector for the IMF and International Banksters.
• Become "power of attorney" when you hire him (grant him a "license to practice law"), thereby rendering yourself imbeciles and incompetent.
• Throw away your case and then send you a bill for screwing you up.
• Put a lien on your property and foreclose on your home if you can't pay your legal bill on time.

If you need help on any of the above, call your local BAR or law society. Please do not call :John-R: Dempsey.

You may contact :John-R: Dempsey via email at: classaction_cpa@hotmail.com or classproceeding@yahoo.ca

John has a new nickname: "The Vexatious Litigant"

Please see article published by the Province" a British Columbia newspaper. http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/VexatiousLitigant1.pdf

The Webster's dictionary defines the word "to vex" means to irritate, to annoy, to pain, to grieve, to disturb, to trouble. Vexation is the act of vexing or the state of being vexed; vexatious means, causing annoyance.

The SYSTEM, which includes the mainstream media such the Vancouver Province newspaper decided to brand John as a vexatious litigant without proper hearing or trial. This is a perfect example of how corrupt the legal system is. Should anyone be interested in finding out from John himself why he was branded a "vexatious litigant, John has created a new hotmail email account: vexatiouslitigant@hotmail.com .

It is really true that John must be a vexation, a thorn on the side of the corrupt legal system who wants to silence him for going against corrupt lawyers and judges who hide behind the statutes and other man-made rules in order to prevent anyone from suing them and exposing them of their crimes against the People of Canada and humanity.

The Law Society of British Columbia has filed a Petition in the Supreme Court to stop John from representing indigent clients in their lawsuits against corrupt governments and financial institutions.

John filed a lien against the useless criminal cartel called the Law Society of British Columbia in the amount $450,000.00 for their deliberate failure to compensate John for the theft committed by a corrupt member lawyer which caused the foreclosure of one of John's properties.

Read John's letter to Mr. Justice Williams: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/LetterToJusticeWilliamsAug9.doc

John's letter clearly demonstrated that neither the law[less] society nor the court had jurisdiction to file or hear such a petition against him by virtue of the legal maxim: nihil dicit which simply translates to: he says nothing. The law[less] society's and the court's refusal to answer John's jurisdictional challenge amounts to a confession that they do not have any valid claim against him. John demonstrated it again on November 21, 2005 when John asked the judge to prove to a courtroom full of people to explain how he could legally assert jurisdiction over him. Copied below is John's report of the Nov. 21 hearing:

1. He doesn’t have any answers;
2. He has the answers but he knows he will be in deep doo doo if he tells the truth on the record.

• You can call me John, I prefer to be called John because I'm used to it. My friends call me John. I'm here to represent a fictional entity called JOHN RUIZ DEMPSEY, spelled in all capital letters. Am I allowed to speak on behalf of JOHN RUIZ DEMPSEY ALL CAPS NAME?
• Before we proceed, I have a few questions to ask you; is it ok to ask you a few questions?
• As a Child of God and a Minister with indisputable title, I am standing in the Kingdom of God, where do you stand?
• Are we in a common law court or an admiralty court?
• Are you a Mason?
• Is there anyone here who is a member of any Masonic organization?
• Did you receive a copy of my letter to you dated October 31, 2005?
• Then you know that I am here on a special appearance and under the invitation of the fictional Petitioner, THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA who agreed to pay me my fees, which is $5,000 per hour for making a special appearance here correct?
• Under the terms of my acceptance of the Law Society’s offer, I counter-offered that I will be here if they pay me $5,000 per hour for a minimum of 8 hours.
• Anyways, I have a copy of the contract which I am entering on the record, you may read it if you want. A Demand for Payment has been served to Mr. Peter Voith; a copy of said Demand for Payment which I also want to enter on the record.
• Did you bring a copy of your Oath of Office and your Bond today James?
• If not, why not James? I asked you in my letter to you of October 31^st that you duces tecum must bring a copy of your Oath of Office and a copy of your Bond, why did you not bring it?
• Do you have certified copies of these documents here in the courthouse or else where?
• (If no Oath or Bond) Let the record show that James W. Williams, d/b/a JUSTICE (JAMES W.) WILLIAMS/PUBLIC SERVANT, does not have his Oath of Office and his Bond in his possession today.
• Without your Oath, how can I be sure that you will act in an impartial manner here today as you did not do so last time I was here?
• How can I be sure that you have no bias, or that you have no conflict of interest, or no interest in the outcome of this case?
• Since you don’t have your Oath today, would you be willing to swear an Oath today?
• How about you Mr. Voith, (law society), would you be willing to swear an Oath today?
• I want to enter this on record that these men are not here to tell the truth – they are here to tell lies.
• You made a decision on September 13, 2005, despite the fact you have seen a copy of my Constructive Notice of Child of God status, now where in God’s name did you obtain the authority to make such an order?
• Are you above God?
• Are you equal to God?
• Do you stand between me and God?
• Do you have any document with any verifiable signature of God that you have the power over me?
• When did I, John-Ruiz: Dempsey, a Child of God and a Minister of God with an indisputable title consent to your jurisdiction? Especially over me, the man, a Sovereign, free born, sentient, living and breathing soul.
• How did you obtain jurisdiction over me? I want to know, especially when I'm not even a citizen of your country – my citizenship is in Heaven you can look it up in the King James Bible – Philippians 3:20.
• Or maybe you think I'm a slave, do you say I'm a slave, or am I a freeman?
• Could you show me anything, any statute, any law that could prove that you have jurisdiction over me?
• I want to make it clear at this point, my name is John-Ruiz: Dempsey, not JOHN RUIZ DEMPSEY all capital letters as it appears on the style of cause. John-Ruiz: Dempsey and JOHN RUIZ DEMPSEY ALL CAPS are not the same; JOHN RUIZ DEMPSEY ALL CAPS is a fictional name created by the state, it is not me, yet you and the law[less] society used that name to drag me into this muddle.
• Do you understand the difference between the ALL CAPS name and the real Christian name?
• The bottom-line here is: which one is more important to you, is it the People, or the law[less] society. Your action speaks volumes, you don’t care about justice, you don’t care about mercy, you don’t care what’s going to happen to all the real People I represent, these are not fictional characters created by your statutes; these men and women are created by God and by interfering with my work, you are interfering with God. This is what God’s Word says about you in Luke 11:52 " Woe Unto you Lawyers! For Ye have Taken Away the Key of Knowledge: Ye entered not in Yourselves, and Then That Were Entering in Ye Hindered"

• How long do you think you guys are going to go on with your injustice and abuse of power until the people start a revolution?
• I'm not dealing with your Court until the jurisdiction has been proven.

Another title for John - "vexatious litigant" ya gotta love him. The SYSTEM hates him.

WARNING

The materials and information contained on this website are not intended to provide legal advice, but instead to provide general information regarding legal developments in the area of commercial litigation. Laws change rapidly, and judges have great discretion in these matters. Any court outcome will necessarily depend upon the specific factual and legal circumstances of each case. Some of the materials and information contained herein may include some obsolete information. No attempt has been made to address and comment on every development in the law. Persons viewing the materials and information contained herein should not take action based upon the contents of this web site, but rather should seek the advice of quality legal counsel. :John-R: Dempsey is not licensed to practice law in Canada or in any jurisdiction that requires membership in a BAR association or law society. Without exception, seriously consider consulting with a lawyer before you make any decision affecting your legal rights.

Read:

WOE UNTO YOU,
LAWYERS!

FRED RODELL

Professor of Law, Yale University

Written in 1939

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm

“Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away
the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves,
and them that were entering in ye hindered.” — Luke. XI, 52

Danny Raymond Larsen v. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of British Columbia et al  Amended SOC ClassA.doc  The Larsen v. HMTQ et al case was filed on behalf of all the boys who were systematically "sentenced" to spend some or their entire childhood at an all boys detention facility called Brannan Lake School for Boys, at Nanaimo, British Columbia between 1946 through 1962. Brannan Lake was not a "school" but rather, a concentration camp where young boys from 10 to 21 years were detained for being "incorrigible." These boys were sentenced without fair trial or hearing to spend time at Brannan Lake where they were systematically abused sexually, physically and medically by then Superintendent of Child Welfare, its employees and agents. These boys were used as slaves, forced to work hard labour contrary to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Representative Plaintiff, Danny Raymond Larsen was sentenced to spend his remaining childhood years from 1956 through 1962. In 1961, when he was 20 years old, Mr. Larsen was sent to Essondale Crease Clinic by then Superintendent of Child Welfare to be sterilized ("castrated" --yes--castrated!) as punishment for trying to escape too many times. Mr. Larsen sues on his own behalf  and on behalf of all the boys who spent time at Brannan Lake School for Boys. We estimate up to 3000 boys went through Brannan Lake between 1946 to 1962.

http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/issues04/102204/news/102204nn1.html

http://www.burnabynow.com/issues04/101104/news/101104nn1.html

Daniela Gavric et al v. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of British Columbia  SOCImmigrantSponsors.DOC   

The Representative Plaintiffs Daniela Gavric and Malkait Dosanjh sues on behalf of at least 3,200 immigrant sponsors who are being subjected to illegal debt collection proceedings by  the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, Collection and Loan Management Branch and its agents and is named herein pursuant to the Crown Proceeding Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 89. The government of British Columbia claims that by virtue of the "undertaking" signed by the immigrant sponsors, these sponsors are responsible for all the basic needs and well-being of the immigrants that were sponsored by them into Canada for up to 10 years. The government says that because the sponsored immigrants applied and were subsequently approved by the Ministry of Human Resources to receive income assistance, the immigrant sponsors have breached their undertaking and therefore they must now pay the government back for what it freely gave to the sponsored immigrants. The government has embarked on unfair and intimidating methods of collection such as attaching liens without any court order on the immigrants' homes in order to frighten and terrorize them into paying the collectors. This case involves basic contract law as well as constitutional issues regarding the rights of the immigrant sponsors as well as their sponsorees.

On December 24, 2004, some 60 or so immigrants formed a non-profit society namely, the BC Immigrants Association for the purpose of defending themselves against the government's unlawful and unfair debt collection practice. In order to counter the government's illegal liens attached to the immigrant sponsor's home, the BC Immigrants Association with the help of Mr. Dempsey filed a $50 million lien against the provincial government.

http://www.burnabynow.com/issues04/102104/news/102104nn3.html

Important Updates:

August 4, 2005, a hearing was set by John on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Danny Raymond Larsen, Daniela Gavric and Malkait Dosanjh regarding cases: Larsen v. HMTQ and Gavric et al v. HMTQ. The Law Society of B.C. muscled in and caused their own Petition against John to be heard. The law society's motion was set for hearing without consulting with John first. The law society believes that it can do anything, even violate ethics and rules of procedure. They after all control the legal industry. As expected, the law society came in and trashed John who walked out of proceeding. John did not participate in the proceeding as he contended with the judge that neither the law society nor the judge had jurisdiction over him. The lawyer for the law society took up most of the day to complete their villification of John who simply stayed out of the courtroom as the law society spilled all their garbage. John returned after the law society finished thrashing him.

Lovey Cridge read John's prepared submissions, emphasizing the fact that the law society and the court does not have jurisdiction to infinge upon a human being's unlimited right of contract. Please see attached submission: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ChambersBriefPetition.doc

Due to the law society's interference, the cases, Larsen v. HMTQ and Gavric et al v. HMTQ were adjourned generally, pending the court's decision on the law society's Petition vs. Dempsey. Another setback and delay caused and permitted by the system.

John's last class action suit, :John-Ruiz: Dempsey on Behalf of the People of Canada v. The Banks (5 major banks and 1 credit union) was the last straw for the B.C. Law Society. They served John with a Petition, on Friday, April 21, 2005. The petition was filed on April 20, 2005.

The Petition essentially applies to the court for an order that John be prohibited and enjoined (legal word for prohibited) from doing these things:

(a)     appearing as counsel or advocate - no problem, John does not appear as counsel or advocate anyway; he appears as "agent" or "attorney" - the law society says he cannot use the word "lawyer" so he won't..

(b)     drawing, revising or settling a document for use in a proceeding, judicial or extra-judicial - well, John would just have to ask someone else to do it for him, right? It doesn't matter who does the documents, as long as it's done properly.

(c)     drawing, revising or settling a document for use in a proceeding in any way to proceedings under the statutes of Canada or British Columbia - big deal, John won't do it then, same as above.

(d)     doing any act or negotiating in any way for settlement of, or settling, a claim or demand for damages - again no big deal, John seldom gets involved in these sort of stuff anyway as counsel or lawyer, he does it as collection agent on behalf of people he represents.

(e)     giving legal advice - John never gives legal advice, he gives self-represented (pro se) litigants instructions and tips about how to present their own claims, or how to defend themselves from corrupt lawyers and gives people valuable knowledge about how corrupt the SYSTEM is based on his own experience so they know what to watch out for.

(f)     offering to provide to a person the legal services set out in (a) to (e) above - John does not "offer" his services to anyone. People come to him because of his reputation as well as the fact that he does not charge anyone an arm and a leg for something the litigant could do himself.

(g)    holding himself out in any way as being qualified or entitled to do anything set out in (a) to (f) above - this is a joke, John always tells the people he represents all of his limitations anyway, but he can't deny the fact that he has a law degree and a degree in criminology. He is more than qualified to stand toe to toe with the best lawyers out there. John would not have filed all of these class actions, particularly the last one - The People vs. The Banks if he cannot do it. The fact is, he can do it, and the law society is scared of him and they are going to try to do everything in their power to stop him from killing the goose that lays the golden eggs for them. No one else in the history of Canadian jurisprudence has anyone done anything like John is doing now.

The law society is also worried about what the other lawyers are going to say. They are the ones paying the dues, John is not, so why are they allowing John to "practice law" without a license? Well simply, there is no such thing as a "license" to practice law. "License" is given by the person or the client who ask for the legal representation. Not one lawyer, at least in the Province of British Columbia has a "license" to practice law until the client authorizes the lawyer to represent him or her. John says he doesn't understand why these lawyers are so stupid that they have to pay some man-made corporate Roman body for the privilege of working in their chosen profession. BAR associations and law societies are nothing but a legalized protection racket, much like the mafia or organized crime body. Why should a lawyer who professes to know the law (or do they?) pay into a the system that only feeds on them? There are more than 10,000 lawyers in B.C. bowing down and paying tribute to this man-made creature for what?

There is no such thing as a "license" to "practice law": http://www.wealth4freedom.com/law/BAR.shtml  http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/ATTORNEY-LICENSE.htm

Lawyer Fees Too High? http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n1c.html

Some lawyers are also worried that John is taking away some of their business, but this is not true. All of the cases John takes are cases that nobody wants such as the hard cases and cases that "normal" lawyers would be too scared to tackle such as cases against the most corrupt organizations - the banks and the governments. A good example of this is the case of Mr. Larsen (Brannan Lake School for Boys) where Larsen tried for almost 40 years to seek justice for the wrongs done unto him by the government of British Columbia. Larsen spoke to at least 100 lawyers, no one wanted to take his case. The last lawyer who had his file, had it for more than 5 years, that guy never did anything. John filed a class action suit two weeks after meeting Mr. Larsen.

What makes the people prefer John is the fact that he does not put himself above the people who comes to him for help. Unlike the practicing lawyers who regards their clients as imbeciles and morons, John treats his people like he would treat himself. They can call him anytime, at home, at work, and can ask him questions, and John does not hesitate to give them answers, not like the lawyers who charge their clients per minute for every little thing they do such as talk to them over the phone or in person. The words billable hours does not exist in his vocabulary. The law society even hired private investigators to see if they can trick John into asking for money to perform legal services. One private investigator reported John said, "if you win a million bucks, just give me a thank you note, or some flowers." The investigator then said, John winked!That was their best evidence that John is engaged in "unauthorized practice of law" (whatever that is).

What blows their mind is: how is it possible that John could provide all these services without expectation of fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, from the person for whom the acts are performed? John says, until these people learn how to love their fellowman, they will never understand John's brand of justice. John also says, until these lawyers experience the hardship of being a victim of injustice themselves, they will never understand the true meaning of justice.

http://www.thebeatonthestreet.ottawa.on.ca/year2001/326.htm

HAROLD C FUNK TEL (613) 235-0617

205 GLADSTONE AVE ACT 46 FAX (613) 235-5573

OTTAWA

ONTARIO

K2P OY5

THE BEAT ON THE STREET

DEAR HEAD OF NATION MAY 10, 15 BILLION

FOR 17 YEARS I HAVE SENT OUT TO ALL HEADS OF NATIONS THESE LETTERS IN THE HOPE OF PROMOTING A MEDIATED PEACEFUL INTERCHANGE BETWEEN AND WITHIN NATIONS. FOR 3+ YEARS THEY HAVE BEEN PUBLIC.

THE FOLLOWING EVENTS ARE A RESPONSE TO MY PEACE INITIATIVE.

(1) IN 1986 MY HOME IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WAS FORECLOSED AND SOLD WITH A STATEMENT THAT IT WAS SOLD AT AN AUCTION WHICH WAS A LIE. THERE WAS NO ONE AT THE AUCTION.

(2) I SUED THE LAW SOCIETY OF P.E.I. FOR FAILURE TO GRANT ME A LICENCE TO PRACTISE LAW ON P.E.I. WHERE I HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO BRING ACTION AGAINST CORRUPT LAWYERS. I TOOK THIS ACTION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. JUDGE LASKIN MADE LIGHT OF THE CASE. THE PRINCIPLE CASE IN MY LEGAL BRIEF WAS LATER USED BY THE COURT TO GRANT THE SAME RIGHT TO ALL CANADIAN LAWYERS TO PRACTICE IN ALL PROVINCES IN THE BLACK DECISION.

(3) I RETURNED TO ONTARIO TO COMPLETE THE S.C.C. APPEAL AND CONTINUED MY PRACTICE OF LAW. ONE OF MY FIRST CASES WAS TO SUE CORRUPT LAWYERS WHO HAD STOLEN MY CLIENTS PROPERTY. IN DUE COURSE THAT CASE WAS WON AFTER JUDICIAL MANIPULATION.

(4) I TOOK UP THE CASES OF PEOPLE IN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS AND FAMILY COURT CASES. I UNCOVERED ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTED INCOMPETENCE OF JUDGES AND CIVIL SERVANTS IN BOTH AREAS.

(5) I UNCOVERED JAILED HUMAN GUINEA PIGS BEING USED IN RITALIN EXPERIMENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA. LEGAL AID (THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA) DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE AND FINALLY STOPPED MY PROPOSED CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT.

(6) DURING THIS PERIOD I WAS MOVING MY OFFICES AND HAD PUT MY FURNITURE IN A FRIENDS GARAGE WHERE AN ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION TOOK PLACE. (DETAILS PAGE 2 )

(7) SIX MONTHS LATER TWO R.C,M.P. OFFICERS CAME TO MY OFFICE AND SAID THEY HAD 1 COMPLAINT BY A NATION ABOUT MY LETTERS TO HEADS OF NATIONS AND ASKED ME TO STOP LETTERS TO ALL. I REFUSED.

(8) A FEW WEEKS AFTER THIS MY OFFICE WAS BROKEN INTO AFTER THE R.C.M.P. HAD ASKED THE LOCATION OF MY COMPUTER AT THAT MEETING AND MY COMPUTER WAS STOLEN.

(9) A FEW WEEKS LATER MY CAR WAS STOLEN FROM MY APARTMENT AND WAS BROUGHT BACK TO MY APARTMENT TRASHED WITH AN ICE PICK.

(10) JUDGE SOUBLIER HAD ORDERED COSTS A YEAR BEFORE OF $30,000.00 AGAINST ME AND MY CLIENT IN AN ACTION AGAINST 3 CORRUPT LAW FIRMS THAT HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE THEFT OF APPROXIMATELY $10,000,000.00 FROM MY CLIENT MICHAEL ACTON BOND.(1 HOUR MOTION)

(11) MOST OF MY WORK WAS FOR THE DISPOSSESSED AND PAID FOR BY THE LEGAL AID PLAN OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA WHOSE FORMER TREASURER WAS JUDGE CHADWICK NOW THE TOP SUPREME COURT JUDGE IN OTTAWA. HE AND JUDGE CHILCOTT AND JUDGE CUNNINGHAM MANIPULATED A CASE IN WHICH BRIAN ROSS WAS KILLED BY AMBULANCE DRIVERS AND POLICE. THE 290 POUND OFFICER PUT HIS KNEE ON MY CLIENTS BACK AND BORE DOWN WHILE HE WAS HAVING AN EPILEPTIC SEIZURE. DEATH IN 60 SECONDS. THERE WAS NO JUDGEMENT FOR DAMAGES AS THIS CASE HAD TO BE COVERED UP. AT THE INQUEST THE JURY CAME TO A DECISION: THE DOCTOR JUDGE READ IT AND TOLD THE JURY TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE SHE DID NOT LIKE IT. SHE TOLD THEM TO FIND THAT MY CLIENT DIED AS A RESULT OF HIS STRUGGLING WHILE THE 290 POUND OFFICER PUT ALL HIS WEIGHT ON HIS BACK WHILE UNDER A SEIZURE. MEDICAL AND GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION ONCE AGAIN.

(12) ONE OF THE LAW FIRMS USED THE COST DEBT OF $30,000.00 TO CLAIM PAYMENT FROM LEGAL AID. MY FUNDS WERE SEIZED BY THE LAW SOCIETY. THIS PRECIPITATED MY BANKRUPTCY AND A HEART ATTACK.

(13) THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA WAS DISBARRING ME FOR FAILURE TO MAKE MY ANNUAL REPORT ON MY TRUST ACCOUNT. I HAD NO FUNDS OF CLIENTS IN MY TRUST ACCOUNT AND NO ACTION HAS EVER BEEN TAKEN BY A CLIENT FOR TRUST ACCOUNT FUNDS. I DID NOT DEFEND THIS ACTION AS I NO LONGER WANTED TO BE A MEMBER OF A CORRUPT LAW SOCIETY. I WAS DISBARRED: MY STATEMENT OF THAT CORRUPTION.

(14) ONE OF MY CLIENTS LAURIER HEBERT WAS LOSING HIS 400 ACRES OF LAND THAT HAD GRAVEL ON IT WORTH $400,000,000.00. THE LAW SOCIETY WAS A DEFENDANT AND THEIR SOLICITORS DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO NOT ALLOW ME DISCLOSURE OF ALL FILES. AFTER I WAS DISBARRED HE LOST HIS CASE AND WAS DRIVEN INTO BANKRUPTCY BY THE JUDGES- LAWYERS AND LAW SOCIETY. JUST LIKE ME. THE LAW SOCIETY GOT OUT OF THEIR $ 400,000,000.00 LEGAL LIABILITY.(FILE 594/82) (BANKRUPTCY 080869)

(14) MY ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION IS SET FORTH IN AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RAMESH MISHRA- A LAWYER- IN HIS APPLICATION NO 25489SCC FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED IN 1997 AND REFUSED AND NOW REQUESTED AGAIN WITH THIS NEW AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE- 72 PARAGRAPHS OF JUDICIAL, POLICE- AND PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MURDERS AND CORRUPTION THAT THE REGIONAL POLICE OF OTTAWA CARLTON REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE AS THEY ARE ONE WITH THE MURDERERS AND CORRUPT OFFICIALS. PARAGRAPHS 23,24,25,26 SETS FORTH THAT MR THEMBI ORISHA BY HIS ADMISSION A SECRET AMERICAN AGENT WAS BROUGHT INTO CANADA FOR THE PURPOSE OF BURNING DOWN THE BUILDING WHERE MY OFFICE FURNITURE WAS IN THE GARAGE AND MURDERING ME. TWO ABORIGINAL PEOPLE WERE BADLY INJURED AND NEVER RECEIVED ANY COMPENSATION FOR THEIR SERIOUS BURN INJURIES AT 99 ARLINGTON AVE OTTAWA.(PARA 25) MR ORISHA WAS BROUGHT FROM THE U.S.A. BY THE CITY OF OTTAWA, PIAZZA, I. BALDELLI ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR, NELLIGAN POWER THE LAWYERS FOR THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA AND JUDGES OF THE ONTARIO COURT GENERAL DIVISION JUDGE CHADWICK AND JUDGE CHILCOTT. (JUDGES TARGETED MY CLIENTS WITH LOSS OF THEIR CASES)

MR THEMBI ORISHA GOT HIS ASSASSINATION INSTRUCTIONS (PARA 24) ON 5 AUGUST 1994 FROM THE CITY OF OTTAWA, THE OTTAWA POLICE, ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION (NOW ROYAL BANK OF CANADA), ROD MORAN AND THE LAW FIRM OF NELLIGAN POWER THE SOLICITORS FOR THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA. MURDER FUNK AND DESTROY HIS RECORDS. THE R.C.M.P. AS STATED LATER STOLE MY COMPUTER TO GET MY RECORDS. MIKE SABOURIN WHO WAS AN EYE WITNESS TO ORISHA SETTING THE FIRE WAS MURDERED BY THESE AUTHORITIES AND DUMPED IN THE RIVER.

ORISHA WAS PROMISED LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS IN CANADA FOR MY ASSASSINATION. (PARA 25) MR ORISHA WAS DEPORTED BACK TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION WHO SHOULD HAVE LAID CHARGES OF ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION AND MURDER ON ALL THE INDIVIDUALS SET FORTH IN THIS AFFIDAVIT.

PEACE

Supreme Court 'absolutely corrupt': prof  http://www.theinterim.com/2004/mar/22supreme.html

Holodeck Law - Litigation Vortex http://humanrightsandupl.tripod.com/linda_kennedy.htm

Links to 'What's Happening' Within the [In] Justice System:

The People vs The Banks: http://www.canadanewswire.com/en/releases/archive/August2005/24/c2716.html

Federal Crown Prosecutor charged with conspiring to obstruct justice : http://www.law.avva.ca/crown.htm

Mr. Anthony Gavrielides conveys to the Saskatchewan Law Society : http://www.law.avva.ca/tonyg.htm

More bad lawyers are stealing more money from their clients: http://www.fathers.ca/court_watch2.htm

Ontario Government: Contempt of Ontario Appeal Court Ruling : http://www.law.avva.ca/Sun/tickets.htm

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris Petition : http://www.petitiononline.com/free9104/petition.html

Former B.C. lawyer arrested in U.S. :http://www.cbc.ca/404.html?filename=bc_lawyer20040904

Pair Stake Massive 900 Billion Lawsuit : http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/News/2004/07/25/555983.html

Court jester : http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Link_Byfield/2004/06/24/512890.html

Courts are in a complete mess : http://www.law.avva.ca/courts.htm

Alta. MLA refuses to explain apparent non-payment of child support : http://www.law.avva.ca/mla.htm

Quennell under fire for letter : http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/sermonettes04/May1.htm

Hall of Shame : http://www.wantedposters.com/orangeville.htm

Other Related Sites:

Injustice Busters : http://www.injusticebusters.com/

Better Justice Bureau : http://www.betterjusticebureau.com/

Dirty Lawyer : http://www.dirtylawyer.com/

Star Chamber Proceedings : http://starchamberproceedings.blogspot.com/

Democracy Watch : http://www.dwatch.ca/

Overlawyered : http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/cat_canada.html

Canada Law Courts : http://canadalawcourts.com/

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/index.html

National Press Release

 Media Release

Contact:

John R. Dempsey or Lovey Cridge
 E-Mail: classaction_cpa@hotmail.com or classproceeding@yahoo.ca

April 22, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Westminster, B.C., April 22, 2005.  While the Liberal Party is busy doing damage control regarding the immigration sponsorship scandal, Lovey Cridge, a retired forensic accountant and John Ruiz Dempsey BSCr, LL.B, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist, both residents of Surrey, B.C., filed a class action suit on behalf of the People of Canada alleging that the Income Tax Act is a fraud. The complaint which could be the biggest class action of all time was filed on Friday April 22, 2005 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster. The suit alleges that the government of Canada has engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the people of Canada through its illegal use of an invalid or non-existent statute, namely, the Income Tax Act of 1948 which has never been properly enacted according to law. The statement of claim alleges that the Plaintiffs which includes all of the People of Canada as the purported “taxpayers” have been defrauded and continues to be defrauded by the Canadian government, its collection agents, the now privatized Canada Revenue Agency (the former Revenue Canada), and robbed of their wealth and fruits of their labour through an elaborate scheme of coloured, illegal and unlawful seizure of property and money through the use of various coercive schemes, threats of fines and incarceration using the bogus and non-existent tax law, and the unlawful revisions thereof namely the Income Tax Act as contained within the Revised Statutes of Canada.

The Plaintiffs says that there is no such thing as a lawful Income Tax Act in Canada. This so-called Act, is not a valid and lawful Act; this “Act” was unlawfully fabricated in violation of the Constitution of Canada, namely, the British North America Act of 1867 as it existed at the time of the purported enactment of the illegal Act.

On or about the year 1948, the Parliament of Canada introduced a Bill which was intended to repeal the War Income Tax of 1917. This Bill which was intended to become the Income Tax Act of 1948, with unlawfully created versions thereof incorporated within various derivatives of the Revised Statutes of Canada are now fraudulently being used by the Defendants to rob the Plaintiffs and all the people of Canada, was never enacted, and never had any force and effect at any time.

The said Bill [or purported Income Tax Act] or the principle of the said bill was said to have been debated with the speeches recorded in the Hansard. At the conclusion of the process, the bill in principle" was sent to the senate for approval. The said bill did not get the senate’s approval; the bill was sent back to the House of Commons for correction but no correction was made and therefore the bill "died" and never became a valid or lawful Act. Further, the said Bill only went through two readings and did not pass the senate. Pursuant to the constitution, a Bill must go through three readings and this so-called Bill, supposed to be named the Income Tax Act of 1948 was never passed, and therefore this Act has never been a lawful Act and therefore void and of no force and effect. The bill as passed must be "read" three times in the Senate. The said bill was not passed by the Senate. Moreover, for a bill or Act to be lawful and valid, any bill passed by the Canadian Parliament and the Senate must be assented to by the representative of the real Crown of England – the “Royal Assent” by the Governor General. At no time had this purported Act been given a Royal Assent by the Governor General if at all. And finally, pursuant to the Canadian Constitution, any Act that has been given a Royal Assent must be published in the Canada Gazette. At no time had this purported Act been published in any Gazette.

Notwithstanding the fact that the said Income Tax of 1948 has not been lawfully passed by the Parliament, nor had it been given a Royal Assent, nor been published in the Canada Gazette, the Defendants, took it upon themselves, to collect income taxes and extorted monies from the people of Canada without any colour of right, and without legal or juristic authority from 1948 to the present, and continues to collect and extort monies and properties from the people of Canada unlawfully.

Those who resisted or refused to pay income taxes were either arrested and falsely incarcerated, charged under various false criminal offences and their properties were unlawfully seized or confiscated contrary to the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Plaintiffs claim that the government and its agents also violated the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 after its enactment as well the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after it was enacted and accepted as law that is enshrined within the Constitution of 1982 in Canada.

To further carry out their fraud and deception, these Defendants “revised” the bogus Income Tax Act of 1948 (Income Tax Act – 1948, c. 52) and fraudulently and without colour of right, incorporated the illegal Act within the 1952 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C. 1952, c. 148). To further conceal their deception, the Defendants again revised the unlawful and counterfeit Income Tax Act (now with the reference to the year “1948” removed) and integrated this “new” Act with the 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C.1970, c. 1-5). Again, to further obscure the truth and complete the “colouring” process, the 1970 (R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-5) Revised Statutes of Canada was again revised and further became the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5^th Supp)).

In all of the above machinations, debauchery and wicked manipulations and fraudulent misrepresentations, the government failed to fully hide the fact that Canada never had a valid and lawful income tax act or statute that could have justified the colossal crimes and unlawful acts perpetrated by the Canadian government against its own people.

The Plaintiffs, Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey, with the help of other researchers searched law libraries and archives for any proof that the impugned Income Tax Act might exist. The Plaintiffs found no evidence of it. The Plaintiffs says such “Act” simply did not exist and are therefore claiming for damages including the return of all monies and property wrongfully collected (stolen) by the Canadian government.

 SOC Income Tax Class A.doc

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/04/26/canada_revenue_agency_class_action.htm

More Interesting Links Regarding Illegal Income Taxation and Canada Revenue Agency http://www.detaxcanada.org/index1.htm

B.C. Constitution: http://www.bcconstitution.org/index.php?&MMN_position=1:1

Thirst for Justice by Murray Gauvreau: http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/tax.htm

http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/eng.htm

Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed August 2, 2005!

National Press Release

Media Release

Contact:

John R. Dempsey or Lovey Cridge
 E-Mail: classaction_cpa@hotmail.com or classproceeding@yahoo.ca

August 10, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Westminster, B.C., April 10, 2005.  Plaintiffs Lovey Cridge, a retired forensic accountant and John Ruiz Dempsey, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist, both residents of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, filed their amended Statement of Claim on August 2, 2005. The original class action suit filed on behalf of the people of Canada was filed on April 22, 2005.

The suit alleges that the government of Canada has engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the people of Canada through its illegal use of an invalid or non-existent statute, namely, the Income Tax Act of 1948 which has never been properly enacted according to law. The statement of claim alleges that the Plaintiffs which includes all of the People of Canada as the purported “taxpayers” have been defrauded and continues to be defrauded by the Canadian government, its collection agents, the now privatized Canada Revenue Agency (the former Revenue Canada), and robbed of their wealth and fruits of their labour through an elaborate scheme of coloured, illegal and unlawful seizure of property and money through the use of various coercive schemes, threats of fines and incarceration using the bogus and non-existent tax law, and the unlawful revisions thereof namely the Income Tax Act as contained within the Revised Statutes of Canada.

The class action suit is a result of more than five years of research and study of de facto Canadian federal statutes. The Plaintiffs say that there is no such thing as a lawful Income Tax Act in Canada. This so-called Act, is not a valid and lawful Act; this “Act” was unlawfully fabricated in violation of the Constitution of Canada, namely, the British North America Act of 1867 as it existed at the time of the purported enactment of the illegal Act.

The impugned Income Tax Act of 1948, as well as many other federal acts enacted by the de facto Canadian government since 1931 has not been enacted properly pursuant to the laws of England and Canada. The Income Tax Act of 1948, with unlawfully created versions thereof incorporated within various derivatives of the Revised Statutes of Canada are now fraudulently being used by the Defendants to rob the Plaintiffs and all the people of Canada.

For a bill or Act to be lawful and valid, the bill must be passed by the Canadian Parliament and the Senate. The Income Tax Act of 1948 was never passed by the Senate. After the bill has met the approval of the parliament and the senate, the bill must be assented to by the representative of the real Crown of England – the “Royal Assent” by a duly appointed Governor General. At no time had this purported Act been given a Royal Assent by any Governor General if at all. And finally, pursuant to the Canadian Constitution, any Act that has been given a Royal Assent must be published in the Canada Gazette. At no time had this purported Act been published in any Gazette.

There has not been a lawfully appointed representative of the Crown since 1931 to the present. In order to circumvent this problem, the then ruling Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyons MacKenzie King signed the infamous Letters Patent of 1947 which gave the de facto Governor Generals all the powers of the Crown, including the power to give Royal Assent. This unlawful practice still goes on today. The ruling Crown of England is precluded by England’s own law to appoint Governor Generals. Again, to thwart this issue, King and the de facto Prime Ministers who came after him started to appoint their own Governor Generals.

Notwithstanding the fact that the said Income Tax of 1948 has not been lawfully passed by the Parliament, nor had it been given a Royal Assent, nor been published in the Canada Gazette, the Canadian government, took it upon themselves, to collect income taxes and extorted monies from the people of Canada without any colour of right, and without legal or juristic authority from 1948 to the present, and continues to collect and extort monies and properties from the people of Canada unlawfully.

Those who resisted or refused to pay income taxes were either arrested and falsely incarcerated, charged under various false criminal offences and their properties were unlawfully seized or confiscated contrary to the Magna Charta, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Plaintiffs claim that the government and its agents also violated the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 after its enactment as well the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after it was enacted and accepted as law that is enshrined within the Constitution of 1982 in Canada.

To further carry out its fraud and deception, the Canadian government “revised” the bogus Income Tax Act of 1948 (Income Tax Act – 1948, c. 52) and fraudulently and without colour of right, incorporated the illegal Act within the 1952 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C. 1952, c. 148). To further conceal their deception, the Defendants again revised the unlawful and counterfeit Income Tax Act (now with the reference to the year “1948” removed) and integrated this “new” Act with the 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C.1970, c. 1-5). Again, to further obscure the truth and complete the “colouring” process, the 1970 (R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-5) Revised Statutes of Canada was again revised and further became the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5^th Supp)).

In all of the above machinations, debauchery and wicked manipulations and fraudulent misrepresentations, the government of Canada failed to fully hide the fact that Canada never had a valid and lawful income tax act or statute that could have justified the colossal crimes and unlawful acts perpetrated by the Canadian government against its own people.

The Plaintiffs, Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey on behalf of the People of Canada, with the help of other researchers searched law libraries and archives for any proof that the impugned Income Tax Act might exist. The Plaintiffs found no evidence of it. The Plaintiffs say that the “Act” simply did not exist and are therefore claiming for damages including the return of all money and property wrongfully confiscated (stolen) by the Canadian government from its people.

http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/SOC Amended Income Tax Class A.doc