Turd Polishing During Topham Trial: Paulie Interviews David Lindsay

During the Topham hate crimes trial the ended in Arthur Topham's conviction, Paulie provided nearly daily updates, both written and video, though it should also be noted that these same updates also carried a wee bit of spin. In one of the write-ups and video, he suggested the ceiling lights were proof of a vast Jewish conspiracy controlling the court system because... reasons.

He had planned on taking a photo of the ceiling as proof, but when he wasn't permitted to do so he threw a self-entitled temper tantrum in which he also complained about the court security.

Cue detaxer/sovereign citizen/freeman/freeman-on-the-land or whatever he calls himself these days, David Lindsay:

Lindsay was one of the cast of fringe figures (including Paulie and Terry Tremaine) who attended the Topham trial. We've featured Lindsay a few times here already, for example in this post where he again fails to show a court the wisdom of his more enlightened understanding of the law. In the video Paulie posted Lindsay suggests that (a)perimeter security programs (i.e. searching individuals entering a court) was unconstitutional and (b) it was Lindsay's efforts that resulted in the Manitoba courts that resulted in the program being declared unconstitutional:

Lindsay, like other detaxer gurus, likes to tout his numerous court victories, though not much closer inspection actually proves that he almost never wins. Anything. In fact, he has been declared a vexatious litigant in British Columbia at least. In this case though there is a speck of truth:

In fact, there was a court challenge to the perimeter security program in place as of the late 1990s in Manitoba:

The Court of Appeals decision was interesting. It acknowledged that court buildings likely did require heightened security and that perimeter security programs were legal IF, such as in Ontario, there were pre-existing laws that permitted such programs to take place. As there were no law in Manitoba at the time allowing the program, it was deemed as not permitted until such time as legislation allowing it was passed into law:

So the practice wasn't unconstitutional per se, but needed the required the legislation to be passed.

But as for Lindsay's involvement? Well, to be fair he was initially involved in the appeal, however it would be more than a stretch to suggest that he was responsible for the appeal's success considering he didn't actually bother to show up to the hearing:

Leave it to Lindsay to not follow through on perhaps the only legal victory he could have actually claimed and not be lying. Then again, the person to whom actual credit may be given isn't likely going to argue with Mr. Lindsay's version of history now . [NOTE: It looks as if we linked to the wrong obituary, so the Mr. Gillespie who filed the appeal may very well still be with us. Thanks for catching our mistake].

In the meantime though, Manitoba passed the Court Security Act which brought Manitoba security procedures into legal compliance. So when, in 2004, Lindsay finally decided to challenge the court's ability to search individuals entering a court building, he was decidedly stomped into a mud hole:

By the way, if any of our readers would like to read about David Lindsay's other "victories" we suggest taking a look at what the good folks at Quatloos have compiled. They's also been monitoring the case of Dean Clifford (here, here, and here) who has also been mentioned on ARC frequently and who is looking to be sentenced for his legal indiscretions some time in January. He too is claiming victory.