Armes for Their Defense;
An Inherited, Historical, Canadian Right

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN

JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF PART 52 OF THE RULES OF COURT;

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION DIRECTED TO
SECTION 117.03 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE:

BETWEEN:

EDWARD B. HUDSON
APPLICANT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH C. GINGRICH

I, Joseph C. Gingrich, of the Town of Nipawin, in the Province of Saskatchewan, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. That I am a naturalized citizen of Canada and as such have knowledge of the matters and facts herein deposed.

2. That I was born in the State of Pennsylvania, United States of America, on 15 March 1947.

3. That I was educated in the State of Kentucky, completing by Doctor of Dental Medicine in May, 1973.

4. That I moved to Canada as a Landed Immigrant to live in the Province of Saskatchewan on Sept 15, 1975.

5. That I owned a dental clinic and practiced dental medicine in the Town of Nipawin, Sask. until I retired in Dec, 2001.

6. That I consider the acquisition, ownership, and possession of firearms without a possession and acquisition licence part of my unique Canadian history heritage and culture..

7. That I have not been prohibited from acquiring, owning, or possessing firearms.

8. That I legally purchased, owned, possessed, and responsibly used my firearms in Canada from Sept 15, 1975 without a firearms licence to acquire and possess firearms up until the Firearms Act mandated a licence to acquire and possess a firearm on 01 January 2001.

9. That since in 1994 I have been directly involved in active political persuasion to have Parliament recognize our innate, British constitutional heritage (our rights inherited from England) and Natural Right to 'have armes for their Defence' and the repeal and/or striking down of the Firearms Act of 1995.

10. That since the licencing mandate of the Firearms Act came into effect on 01 January 2001 I have owned, possessed, and responsibly used my firearms without a firearms licence (possession and acquisition license) because this kind of firearms licence infringes upon my civil right to have arms for defence, my property rights, my privacy rights and my right to self defense, to such a degree and extent, that it over regulates these rights to the point of extinguishing them.

11. That I met Dr. Hudson and Jack Wilson and joined the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association (CUFOA) in August 2002.

12. That as a close, personal associate of Dr. Edward B. Hudson I have traveled with him extensively all across Canada over the past eight years, participating actively with him in peaceful, nonviolent public civil noncompliance to the Firearms Act.

13. That since joining CUFOA, I have been directly involved with Dr. Hudson in active political persuasion to have Parliament recognize our innate, British constitutional heritage (rights inherited from England) and our Natural Right to 'have armes for their Defence' and the repeal and/ or striking down of the Firearms Act of 1995.

14. That to obtain CUFOA's goal, Dr. Hudson, several associates, and I determined to challenge the licensing provisions of The Firearms Act and the related provisions of The Criminal Code of Canada in such a manner that we would be charged and could bring our constitutional arguments directly into open court before a judge and jury.

15. That to this end I traveled with Dr. Hudson and several associates to Ottawa, Ontario, in December 2002 to organize a demonstration of firearms owners on Parliament Hill.

16. That on 01 January 2003 I have was directly, actively involved on Parliament Hill in Ottawa with Dr. Hudson and several associates in peaceful, civil noncompliance to the Firearms Act of 1995 to have the Courts recognize our rights inherited from England which includes our civil right to "have armes for their defence."

17. That during that demonstration, Dr. Hudson, my associates, and I publically transferred a British .303 firearm's receiver component amongst ourselves; that during that demonstration CUFOA President Jim Turnbull and Dr. Hudson were arrested and charged with "taking a weapon to a public meeting"; and that the RCMP and Ottawa City Police held Mr. Turnbull and Dr. Hudson in jail for two hours.

18. That at the same time when Jim Turnbull and Dr. Hudson were arrested on Parliament Hill, the RCMP detained and questioned me for over thirty minutes and advised me that I might also be arrested in the future.

19. That on 21 January 2003, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, I was with Doctor Hudson in front of the Saskatoon Police Headquarters when we challenged the licensing provisions of The Firearms Act and the related provisions of The Criminal Code of Canada by publically transferring between ourselves a firearm's receiver component from another British .303 Lee-Enfield rifle.

20. That at that time Sgt B. Shalovelo #297 of the Saskatoon Police Service arrested both Dr. Hudson and myself for obstructing "a public officer or peace officer" when he attempted to use Criminal Code section 117.03 to seize the firearm's receiver component of our rifle; and that the Saskatoon City Police held me in jail for two hours.

21. That two months later the Crown stayed the obstruction charges; and that to my knowledge the Saskatoon City Police still hold that firearm's receiver component of our rifle in their Evidence Room.

22. That on 29 January 2003 I was with Dr. Hudson and several associates when we arrived on an Air Canada flight from Saskatoon at the international airport in Ottawa, Ontario, and the Ottawa City Police again arrested Dr. Hudson for obstructing "a public officer or peace officer" when a constable attempted to use Criminal Code section 117.03 to seize two firearms he was carrying in securely locked gun cases.

23. That continuing our CUFOA campaign to challenge the licensing provisions of The Firearms Act and the related provisions of The Criminal Code of Canada into the summer of 2003, Dr. Hudson, and I, along with several associates, drafted and had certified affidavits proclaiming our ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles without the mandated federal licence to possess firearms - see Exhibit A.

24. That in July 2003 Dr. Hudson, several associates and I traveled from "sea-to-sea" to each provincial capitol from Victoria, British Columbia, to St. John's, Newfoundland; that my associates and I personally delivered these affidavits that openly declared we possessed firearms without a federal firearms licence to the offices of the attorneys-general of these several provinces, and to the Prime Minister's Office on Parliament Hill in Ottawa; and that no law enforcement agencies nor government officials laid any charges.

25. That I have assisted and helped Dr. Hudson in all aspects of the court presentations concerning his challenges to the destruction orders of his firearms.

26. That I take this Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion to declare that Criminal Code section 117.03 is ultra vires Parliament on the ground that it is inconsistent with the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 (the British North America Act, 1867); that Criminal Code section 117.03 violates sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and that Criminal Code section 117.03 violates sections 1 and 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960, and that Criminal Code section 117,03 violates the Magna Carta of 1215, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, John Locke's 2nd Treatise (1690) and William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). Blackstone's Commentaries are the closest England ever came to having a written constitution.

27. That I feel very strong exidence exists which shows that the Canadian Bar Association has intentionally and maliciously poisoned the sources of justice within Canada since 1972. The Canadian justice system has become so stained and so tainted that anyone charged with an offence from within the Canadian firearms community is unable to be sure of receiving a fair trial by an impartial judge within an unbiased courtroom or even being represented by a trustful lawyer. (see exhibit B below)

SWORN before me at the village of White Fox, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this day of September, 13, 2010.

Joseph C. Gingrich DMD

____________________
A Commissioner for Oaths in and for
the Province of Saskatchewan.
My commission expires

This document is delivered by:
Edward B. Hudson, DVM, MS
Applicant

402 Skeena Court
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 4H2
(306) 242-2379

Exhibit A

The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa K1A 0A2

Friday, June 20, 2003

Dear Prime Minister Chretien,

Re: Protection of Canadian Freedom

I, Joe Gingrich, do solemnly swear that I own a British 303 firearm serial # S7c7156. I further swear that: (a) I do NOT have a firearms license, (b) this firearm is NOT registered, (c) I did NOT send a "Letter of Intent to Register" this firearm before 31December2002, and (d) I have NO intention of ever registering this firearm and/or acquiring your
firearms license.

I understand that my ownership and possession of this firearm violates your Firearms Act of 1995.

I send this letter of non-compliance directly to you, Jean Chretien, as a open, honest, peaceful act of civil disobedience. I respect the "Rule of Law". However, I can not submit to an unjust law such as the Firearms Act of 1995. I take this action to enforce my freedoms and civil liberties provided to me by Canadian law. To comply with the terms of the Firearms Act of 1995, I must first violate my own rights and freedoms so described by Canadian Constitutional law. Sir, this I refuse to do.

The Firearms Act of 1995, and the subsequent changes to the Criminal Code of Canada, violates at least twelve specific rights guaranteed to me by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore the
Firearms Act violates the Canadian Constitution, the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960, English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and the Magna Carta of 1215.

I refuse to surrender my right to privacy, my right to property, my right to bear arms my right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, my right against self incrimination, my right to the presumption of innocence, my right to representation, my right to liberty, my right to procedural fairness and, my right to freedom of association. I steadfastly maintain my right to self defense.

I will not submit to your unjust law which does nothing to improve safety or reduce crime in Canada. I will not tolerate the destruction of my civil rights and liberties encroached upon by your mere illegal law.

In defense of the return of freedom to Canada,

Dr. Joseph C. Gingrich
DOB, March 15, 1947
Box 2409
Nipawin, Saskatchewan
SOE1EO

CC: Federal Solicitor General Wayne Easter
Premier Lorne Calvert of Saskatchewan
Justice Minister Eric Cline of Saskatchewan
Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon
Sgt B. Shalovelo #297 Saskatoon Police Service
The Supreme Court of Canada
The people of Saskatchewan and Canada

Exhibit B

It is NOT Possible for Firearms Owners to get a Fair Hearing in Canada.

Canadian firearms owners have felt the wrath of many organizations over the last 30 years. Such organizations as the Canadian Professional Police Association, theCanadian Association of Chiefs of Police, some health
associations, somewomen'sgroups, the Coalition for Gun Control, major political parties and the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) have all unfairly shifted the blame of gun violence and the criminal misuse of firearms upon innocent, responsible Canadians who own firearms.

These groups all have their own agendas for being involved in a large conspiracy to disarm Canadian gun owners under the guise of public safety. Usually one conspirator will make up a lie and have their co-
conspirators disseminate it to the public as factual (read references 9 & 11 below).

There exists a cleverly crafted 38 year collusion within the Canadian Bar Association and among its allies against one group of freedom-loving conscientious Canadians: the Canadian firearms community.

There has been long-held unsubstantiated feelings within the firearms community that the scales of the Canadian justice system were weighing against it. However, there was no tangible evidence that widespread
legal unfairness was actively propagated towards them from within the justice system until May 26, 2010.

It was then that the CBA presented their three page Letter to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, "Re: Bill C-391 - Repeal of Long-Gun Registry" to Garry Breitkreuz, M.P., Chair, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security shown below (ref 9 &11).

The surprise is that the bigoted CBA volunteered this information exposing themselves as to the extent and duration of their conspiracy against the Canadian firearms community. This "legal" organization has been allowed
to unfurl anti-gun propaganda and support discriminatory laws upon a distinct group of 5 million blameless Canadian gun owners for decades. (10)

Canadian gun law violations are primarily tried by a judge, only a few with judge and jury. Since 1972 the CBA has been anti-gun. All judges were at one time lawyers, law students, and even "unpolished" students
before reaching the bench. Our judges may have been impartial at one time, until they were subjected to the antigun brain-washing propaganda along their journey toward the judiciary by the CBA. Two thirds of the
lawyers in Canada (7) are members of the CBA; some are forced to join the organization by regulatory law.

Therefore, possibly as many as 2/3 or more of the Canadian judges on the bench are anti-gun and severely prejudiced against members of one specific minority group, the Canadian firearms community.

When a lawyer is appointed as a judge they must "rescind" their ties to the CBA. Does that mean Canadian judges, former lawyers and law students, whose open minds have been scarred for decades by the CBA's antigun
activities are now to become "impartial" judges? Do you believe they will recant their well etched prejudices towards members of the firearms community acquired by their previous years of affiliation with the CBA? "Leopards don't change their spots. "This mind change is highly unlikely. Suspicions of biased judges sitting on the bench meting out harsh sentences for members of the Canadian firearms community, abound. "Judges must be and should appear to be impartial with respect to their decisions and decision making. Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in
which they believe they will be unable to judge impartially. Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe that a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would have a reasoned suspicion of conflict between a judge's personal interest (or that of a judge's immediate family or close friends or associates) and a judge's duty."(2)

Where do members of the Canadian firearms community find impartial lawyers to represent them? In the Canadian Code of Professional Conduct for lawyers under "Integrity" (Chapter 1), it states: "If the client is in any doubt about the lawyer's trustworthiness, the essential element in the lawyer-client relationship will be missing." (1,7,8,12 ) But what's likely more significant, where can these individuals find objective judges(2) and neutral courts of law within Canada (4)? - -They can not!

1. The CBA has intentionally and maliciously corrupted the wells of justice within Canada since 1972 to the extent that anyone charged with an offence from within the firearms community would be unable to receive a fair trial (11). Remember, "The Canadian Bar Association is a national association representing over 37,000 jurists, including
judges, lawyers, notaries, law teachers and law students across Canada." (3,4,5,6,7,

2. What remedies are expected for this miscarriage of justice? Primum non nocere. "First, do no harm." The extent of bias within the Canadian justice system is wide-spread towards members of the Canadian firearms community. Therefore, all legal proceedings against members of the Canadian firearms community must be STAYED on a national level. These individuals absolutely can not receive a fair trial within Canada. As part of the remedy, the govt. of Canada and the provinces must apologize to the Canadian firearms community for its ruthless brutal oppression of its most innocent, responsible, and trustworthy citizens. These governments must return, in a timely fashion, all the seized property and/or just compensation for such property where it has been destroyed and/or defaced. This includes any payments made by members of the firearms community for any government required firearms' related
licenses such as (firearms registration, firearms possession and acquisition licenses and/or firearms possession only licenses etc.)

Sources and/or suggested reading:

Joseph C. Gingrich DMD
Box 2409 Nipawin, Sask., S0E 1E0
(306)276-2158