"HOW CAN SO MANY PEOPLE BE WRONG" SOOKE RCMP OFFICER. "THEY ARE WRONG AND A CRIMINAL MOB" LINDON COLLARD

Thursday, 6 June 2019

ENVIOUS AND UNTALENTED

PEOPLE, INCLUDING FAMILY MEMBERS, CLEARLY EXPRESSED THEIR OPPOSITION TO MY MUSIC PROJECTS AND SOUGHT TO HAMPER AND PUNISH ME.

There simply cannot be an unlawful attempt to establish a music career. There  is no way that any hampering or threatening or creation of a change in financial circumstance to retard or destroy any career can possibly be lawful.

People calling in 911 complaints about hearing music practice or projects at work criminalize an honorable effort to obtain sustenance and to progress what talents one might have developed. The Canard of By-Law Officers raiding without a warrant powered by a "complaints based enforcement system'' renders hard working artists vulnerable to the brutal and threatening Police who most of all want to be feared and in charge. How can this hampering be tolerated by a musician or artist? I am sensitive and easily intimidated, I am crippled and I never have anyone else with me for support. There were only two occasions where I was not alone and facing up to 17 people or 12 people or 6.

ALL THIS IN THE NAME OF "TARGET HIS MUSIC, THAT IS ALL HE CARES ABOUT". ALL OF THAT IS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, THERE IS NO WAY TO LAWFULLY HAMPER OR TARGET ANYONE USING FALSE COMPLAINTS AND RIDICULOUS DEFAMATION. FAMILY MEMBERS ACTUALLY SAID  " HE IS CRAZY, HE THINKS HE IS GOING TO BE A ROCK STAR". THE SOOKE POLICE SAID :'' CRAZY IS HE DANGEROUS?". My wife and my brother encouraged this defamation by making ambiguous statements about how I could be violent and dangerous and I in fact am crippled and pretty well helpless when it would come to doing anything violent. The only place I could be found was in Vancouver or here on my acreage so what thE Sooke RCMP were protecting I do not know.

 THE POLICE THEN TOLD EVERYONE I WAS CRAZY AND DANGEROUS SO A HUNDRED FOOLS CAME TO MY PROPERTY TO TRY TO POP THE PIMPLE BY PRESSURING AND RAIDING ME. ENVIOUS NON-ACHIEVERS SHOULD NOT BE IN CONTROL OF AMBITIOUS ARTISTS.

FROM LIVE ROCK CRITIC        "Leslie" my Gibson  Black Beauty Les Paul

My Studio Stage with Twin Kurzweils and Roland Synthesizer Guitar.
The studio: A 27' x 16' Wedge with asymmetrical walls and cedar ceiling.

LIES KILL

INFANTILIZATION

INFANTILIZATION WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY CHRIS WILEY THE INTERNET PUNDIT.

Wiley was referring to how the internet service providers were deciding what people would see and what would be advertised to them and how personal information was used.

The process of taking over the decision making capacity of another person as if they were incapable of making the right or even a safe decision is predatory infantilization.

When the person who is being controlled as if they were an irresponsible child is dispossessed or punished the situation is one of egregious criminal exploitation.

People who are the subject of infantilization by others are said to have been "infantilized." Studies have shown that an individual, when infantilized, is overwhelmingly likely to feel disrespected. Such individuals may report a sense of transgression akin to dehumanization. This statement is from Wikipedia.

Infantilization is a tool for corporations and authorities to use to disregard the evidence and statements of citizens and to deny citizens their lawful rights to self determination and the rectification of damage done to them.

Injured in an accident: you have to get one of the Real Adults to vouch for you and if the Real Adults cannot or do not want to see what is clearly evident you could be out of luck. 

The process and abuse which is to send Law Enforcement to supervise persons based on unevidenced complaints and without judicial warrant is a a form of infantilization.

The process where the adult male is subjected to control by the adult female because he has to or suffer divorce and property loss is a form of Infantilization. 

Egregiously criminal and patently absurd is the process where a property owner in a relationship with a dependent can be Infantalized and controlled and even dispossessed when the responsibility and achievement of the property owner are obvious as they have achieved and maintained ownership of the property.

A VERY CONVENTIONAL START TO EVERY LEGAL PROCESS

DISABLED NOT COMPENSATED

Disabled not compensated means that the minute I am smashed in an accident I stop all productive activity. There has to be an alternative pay day when all of yours are terminated by injury.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

A VERY CONVENTIONAL START TO EVERY LEGAL PROCESS

I NEVER SET OUT TO BE SELF-REPRESENTED NOR DO I BUCK THE SYSTEM. I ATTENDED SCHOOL, 14 YEARS, I WORKED AT THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY FOR 7 YEARS AND I HIRED LAWYERS FIRST EACH TIME A LEGAL PROCESS BEGAN.

 

I started each ICBC case I tried by hiring or attempting to hire a lawyer first.

I did not do or say anything unlawful at any time and in my divorce negotiation. I hired Pam Murray QC who was seriously ill and Betty's Lawyer knew and stalled until she died. What bullshit is that in a negotiation. I would rather give money to my wife and kids, especially as a house to live in rather than to lawyers to fight. 

Often the weird aggressive description of myself is so far off the practical economic principles which I practice first and only. There are Millions of proofs of this. I work and invest until I am forced to fight or lose more than it costs to fight. I often have reasons to not want to have a public dispute and then as a tactic such a situation will be created and then ascribed to me. Hogwash.

SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF BLOCKHEADS WHO HAVE FOUGHT WITH ME OR BLAMED ME FOR FIGHTING FAIL TO REALIZE THAT AS AN ARTIST, WRITER, MUSICIAN, COMPOSER, VIDEOGRAPHER AND PERFORMER I DO NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST IN ALMOST ANYONE.

I AM BUSY. DO NOT FIND A PREMISE TO BOT

A NECESSARY PRECEDENT

THE PRECEDENT I NEED TO PROCEED MIGHT WELL EXIST IN CANADA . I HAVE TO DO THE LEGAL RESEARCH, AND TODAY AND MOST DAYS I COULD NOT DO IT. I AM PHYSICALLY ABLE TO DRIVE MY CAR, BUT ONCE I GOT THERE I MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO WALK AND CONVERSE AND READ, PROBABLY NOT AT THIS TIME OR LATELY. PERHAPS THERE IS MORE INFORMATION  ON LINE AND AT WEBSITES CONTEMPORANEOUSLY BUT EVEN THAT RESEARCH IF I HAD TO DO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE IN RATHER SHORT SEGMENTS.

WHERE RESPONDENTS OR PERPETRATORS USE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF OR VICTIM  TO DEFEAT LITIGATION OR PROSECUTION TIME LIMITS DO NOT APPLY OR ARE NOT APPLICABLE.

Here is what I think is the really important part that I really like but the crook cops and crook lawyers will fight like hell and, tut , tut, you are not supposed to interfere in anything which would elicit more Truth here in Canada under Canadian Law.

WHERE PREVARICATION AND THE USE OF FALSE ALLEGATION OR THE MISUSE OF POLICE POWERS HAS DELAYED LITIGATION OR THE FILING OF A LAWSUIT , THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RESPONDENT. 

In the 1980's I went to Victoria and I had a meeting with the Chief Crown Prosecutor. I said " Several people will come onto my property and they will make a complaint to Police and Police believe them as there are more of them". "They can't do that."he said. In addition very importantly, the evidence of the solo resident or in my case owner as well of the property is to be judged credible and the statements of the mob of trespassers is to be disregarded. 

I had two accident claims to deal with in the early 2000's, and the word was out, lawyers would not represent me, Chris Bing, said he could not represent a person like me it would tarnish his Firm. I personally took up litigation which accused Prevarication and Collusion approaching the level of a Criminal Conspiracy and the mentally ill or drug addicted, he stunk like  some  street persons do, Harold Turnham of Turnham Woodland Waddell Rupponi had Sheriffs surround me in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. There were two in the Court but Turnham called in two more and he grinned and laughed and danced around pointing at me. The only collapse I had where I was not on my own property was when I was a self-represented plaintiff in British Columbia Supreme Court.

THE "REALLY PARALYZED"I AM EXPERIENCING TODAY WILL HAVE ME RECLINING WHICH I HAD TO DO MOST OF YESTERDAY, VIRTUALLY PARALYZED. THE TERRIBLE TONIC IMMOBILITY OR COLLAPSE IMMOBILITY  HAS BEEN EXTENDED AND MADE TO BE MORE DEBILITATING AND I HAVE SUFFERED SERIOUS LONG LASTING INJURY FROM COLLAPSING WHEN THE POLICE OR BY-LAW OR  SHERIFFS RAIDED AS A RESULT OF HOW PERSONS DEFENDED THEMSELVES AGAINST IMPENDING LEGAL ACTION. GETTING OUT OF TROUBLE FOR WHAT YOU DID BY SICCING THE COPS ON THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO BECOME AN ENFORCED AGAINST CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

Postscript May 9 2019.

The Precedent which I used in 2001 or 2002 may or may not be  a utilized Precedent as I had thought it was. Perhaps it was only myself, self represented that utilized it. In 2004 I appealed the dismissal and I hired Berntsen to represent me but I was going to be there. He, Dorgan and Turnham had a hearing the day before I was to be in Court and hopefully not able to be surrounded with Sheriffs as I would have a lawyer with me and that did not happen. Berntsen simply folded, he had written a few words on a piece of loose paper, I had requested his work product file.

 They did not surround me with Sheriffs when Peter Firestone represented me. He did his job well but I could never get the evidence of what the false allegations were that were lodged against me regarding my lawful recorded telephone messages to keep the Alf Toone COOP tenants he managed off of my property and to stop making Fake 911 calls as they stated ``bankrupt him and his Ferrari``. 

CRIMINAL THREATS-DO NOT UTTER SUCH THREATS

I am castigated as I do declare that I will sue in response to the actions, past , present or intended of anyone who damages or will damage myself or my property.  It is said about me, to me, " You are always threatening to sue ". That is true but it is the only lawful warning that one can utter. One can declare that they are inclined to and will undertake litigation if they are damaged. One can declare that they will inform Police if they are in imminent danger of having a Criminal offence committed where they are the victim. 

There are serious situations where indictable offenses are being committed and a person is or persons are in danger or property loss will occur where Police should be informed immediately. Observing damage or intrusion and informing Police is lawful to help to protect the community.

 Generally, however, Citizens are restricted to declaring to Police that they, their dependents, chattels, livestock, vehicles and buildings are likely to be imminently damaged. The Police or By-Law or Sheriffs should be called to attend at the Citizen's property or residence or place of employment only,  and only when protection from real danger or destruction is required.

Sending the Police next door or down the road to someone else's house should be accompanied by serious, irrevocable and available documentation clearly indicating who, what and why  about the serious violation of Law if the process even just goes wrong. Oops. We did not know just does not matter. I will gather the evidence and vigorously litigate against all persons or organizations involved with Fake 911 Calls.

I HAVE TRIED EVERY METHOD I COULD CONCEIVE OF TO EXTRACT INFORMATION TO LITIGATE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUALS WHO FALSELY OR MISTAKENLY OR NARCISSISTICALLY HAVE SWATTED ME TO NO AVAIL WHICH I WOULD ARGUE IS A CLOCK STOPPER.

VIRTUALLY THE ONLY WAY ONE MIGHT LAWFULLY EXPRESS THEIR DISPLEASURE WITH ACTIONS OR WORDS OF OTHER PERSONS WOULD BE TO DECLARE THAT LEGAL ACTION WOULD BE UNDERTAKEN.

Criminal Threats or declarations that unlawful action would be undertaken EVEN IN RESPONSE TO UNLAWFUL OR CRIMINAL ACTS THAT WERE ABOUT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ARE SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

Citizens cannot declare that they feel hatred towards a person or persons nor can they declare that they will hamper or damage financially or reputationally another person. Harassing a person by sending Police and By-Law without requiring protection for you and yours at your place is also a criminal offence.

Citizens have to be careful about what they publish and could be legally liable. Publicizing about wrongdoing would be better accomplished by litigation.

THE ONLY THING THAT YOU CAN DO IS TO SUE.

  

From Drunkycocamovision Blog on Batshit Crazy

Monday, 6 May 2019 https://drunkycocamo.blogspot.com/

THREE GREAT BATSHIT CRAZY IN CHARGE STORIES

A Lindon Collard contribution to Drunkycocamovision blog:

This is the Truth, I never lie: I wonder Why Batshit Crazy Rule is allowed to go on and on, on me, from childhood to old age?