Direct Link to Latest News


Challenge to Masonic Control of Canadian Justice

October 3, 2011


Canadian courts stonewall a case demanding  judges, lawyers and government officials reveal if they are Freemasons. The case claims Freemasons conspire against non-Masons.

by Eva Sydel

Over a decade ago, Eva Sydel began investigating Canada's income tax laws and joined the "De-tax movement." As a result she was selectively prosecuted by the Canadian tax authorities. She was convicted of tax evasion by British Columbia Judge Paul Meyers in July, 2006, and sentenced to 18 month in prison in October, 2007.   She served 12 months in jail and was released 6 months early for good behaviour which is the usual procedure in Canadian prisons. She has no other criminal record.

The judicial manipulations of Freemasonry are now under review by the Supreme Court of Canada in a precedent setting case that could result in the banishment for Freemason lawyers and judges from Canada's courts and set an international legal precedent with far reaching implications.   

This unique case, that is not reported in the Canadian media, arose when I was convicted of tax evasion and served 12 months in jail as a result of a selective prosecution intended to make me, in the words of a Canada taxation officer, "the poster girl for the de-tax movement in Canada".  

When released from prison, the "poster girl" learned from an observer that Provincial Court of British Columbia Judge, Paul Meyers, and Canada Revenue Agency chief enforcement officer, Richard Olney, had communicated with a system of hand signals.  The observer had worked with the deaf and was a magician by profession.

I consulted with a Canadian lawyer who was not a Freemason but who was aware of their judicial manipulations.  The lawyer told her to obtain an affidavit from the observer and then apply to the court to set aside her conviction on the basis that the case was fixed by Freemasons.

She should also sue the Canadian government for damages for breach of its obligations to provide her a fair and impartial hearing before an independent tribunal, a right guaranteed by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by international treaties and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Covenant on Political and Civil Rights.


A sworn affidavit was obtained from the observer who was in the courtroom confirming that he saw the judge and the Canada Revenue Agency Chief Enforcement officer secretly communicating by hand gestures, it was filed the affidavit with the Canadian courts and applications were made to set aside the conviction and advance a claim for monetary damages.  The truth of the allegation in the affidavit was never denied by the Canadian Government that was defending against the applications and the allegation continues to stand as an un-refuted legal fact in Canada's court system.

To make matters worse, the Canadian Government refused to answer questions submitted in accordance with the Rules of Court about whether or not the judge and the Canadian Revenue Agency officer were Freemasons and if they were, in fact, communicating with one another by a system of sign language as alleged.  Instead, the Canadian government quickly applied to court in British Columbia to dismiss the applications.  

In the lower Canadian courts, the intrepid Canadian "poster girl" asked the presiding judges to disclose if they were Freemasons and, if so, withdraw from hearing the applications of the Canadian Government because Freemasons take an Oath to protect fellow Freemasons. The whole case was about Freemasons fixing a trial which is a criminal offence in Canada carrying a penalty of up to 14 years in jail.  

 The judges, Mr. Justice Stephen Kelleher and Madam Justice Marion Maisonville, both of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, refused to make the disclosure requested and dismissed the applications of the Canadian citizen.  In addition, court registry staff in Vancouver were caught concealing one of the dismissal judgments so that the "poster girl" would miss the appeal deadline but, fortunately, she was alerted to the judgment by an informant.

A complaint about the alleged fraudulent conduct of the court registry staff was filed with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Robert Bauman, the Canadian Judicial Council, Canada's Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, and the Deputy Attorney General for British Columbia, David Loukedelis. 

Complaints were also filed with Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and to Canada's intelligence service, the Canada's Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) because it was now obvious that Freemasonry, a foreign controlled organization, had infiltrated Canada's courts.


In what may have been a related co-incidence, over the next few months, a former CSIS director, Jack Hooper, a leading Freemason and former Canadian Judge, Bert Oliver, and a Canadian author, who specialized in intelligence matters, Michel Gratton, suddenly died in suspicious circumstances that suggest one or more of them were murdered.       

An appeal was filed with the next level of court, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, where the nine judges refused to disclose if they were Freemasons or associated with Freemasonry. 

So far, twelve judges in British Columbia are now implicated in this Freemasonic judicial conspiracy ranging from the lowly Provincial Court Judge, Paul Meyers, to the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Lance Finch.

The persistent Canadian, determined to rectify her wrongful conviction, has now filed applications for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada, that is located in Canada's capital city of Ottawa, 3,000 miles distant from British Columbia, Canada's westernmost province, where Freemasonry is entrenched and where there has been an obvious conspiracy of higher court judges to protect the Freemason judges in the lower courts.

Immediately after the appeal was filed with the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Ian Binnie of that  court decided to take early retirement.


The appeal will also raise the novel legal issue of the continuing application of the Unlawful Oaths Act and Unlawful Societies Act in Canada and their implications for Freemasonry in Canada.    

These two statutes were passed by the English parliament, in 1797 and 1799, and were intended to protect English society from secret societies that were responsible for the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution and the loss of the American colonies and that were suspected to be active in England threatening the authority of the Crown.  

At that time, laws adopted by the English Parliament became part of the law of Canada which was then an English colony.  These statutes do not apply in the United States which achieved its independence from England in 1776 nor do they apply any longer in England due to criminal law reforms in 1968 that relieved Freemasonry from its former obligations to regularly report to the government on the business taking place in its lodges.   

None of the lawyers for the Government of Canada has denied that these old statutes are part of the law of Canada.  If these old statutes are upheld by Canada's highest court, Canadian Freemasons may find themselves barred from being judges or lawyers in Canada.  The court will also be asked to rule on the issue of whether or not judges must disclose if they are Freemasons when asked.


Freemasonry and Income Taxation have a complicated history in Canada.  For the first 50 years of Canada's existence it was generally accepted that Canada's Federal Government did not have the legislative power to implement an income tax, except in time of war, which was exactly what happened in 1917 when the War Measures Income Tax Act was introduced to pay for Canada's effort in World War 1.  

The first peacetime Income Tax Act was passed by Canada's Parliament in 1948 under the leadership of Canadian Prime Minister, William Lyon McKenzie King, a closet Freemason who had been an employee of the Illuminatist Rockerfeller family before returning to Canada to enter politics. 

There is body of legal opinion that the 1948 Income Tax Act was illegal under Canada's Constitution Act of 1867 so that subsequent amendments and revisions are also illegal.  In documents filed in the legal proceedings, it was admitted by one of the government lawyers that the Income Tax Act 1948 had not received royal assent as required by Canada's Constitution Act 1867.  This particular issue, the absence of royal assent, has never been adjudicated upon before in Canada.

Interested readers can learn more by visiting the web site set out to support the litigation which stresses that it is not anti-masonry site but does oppose Freemasons who use their skills and special arts to manipulate the justice system.

The Supreme Court of Canada dockets related to the two applications can be found at:



We are also appealing for information about the probable membership of the judges and the former Canada Revenue Agency Enforcement Officer in Freemasonry and ask that readers contact us at if they have any information that confirms if former Canada Revenue Agency Chief enforcement Officer, Richard Olney, or any of the following judges in British Columbia are Freemasons or associated with Freemasonry.

Others on the list are  Provincial Court Judge Paul Meyers, Supreme Court of British Columbia Justices Stephen Kelleher or Marian Maisonville and British Columbia Court of Appeal Justices, Lance Finch, Katherine Neilson, Risa Levine, Chris Hinkson, David Tysoe, Stan Low, Elizabeth Bennett, John Hall, or Pamela Kirkpatrick.    

The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to rule in the next few months on whether or not the application for leave to appeal will be granted.


Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Challenge to Masonic Control of Canadian Justice"

V said (October 5, 2011):

Great article by Eva Sydel. I wish her well. When you do battle against crown agents you will ultimately loose your freedom and wealth as she did.

Federal and provincial judges owe their allegiance to the British crown. They are crown agents and powerful ones at that. A royal, HRH the Duke of Kent is the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of freemasonry.

Canadian judges have "judicial immunity" while behind the bench and this immunity is absolute. Even if a judge is incompetent, negligent, malicious he/she is clothed in judicial immunity. Sounds like the "devine rule of kings", the "high priests of the temple" judges. Even if the judge said that he/she were a freemason and did communicate in sign language with a 'esquire' lawyer the judge is immune from lawsuits, prosecution while behind the bench.

There is an excellent Canadian book titled 'Fraud, Deception, Manipulation' by Robert A Marquis dealing with the fraud of federal income tax in Canada contrary to the British North America act. Very well researched and written.

British controlled Canadian freemasonic judges and esquire (shield bearer) attorneys don't give a damn about you rights (crown privileges) as the write the codified laws in their own language and interpret it to whatever they see fit.

anon said (October 3, 2011):

Challenge To Masonic Control...'The godly man has perished from the earth, and there is none upright among men-they all lie in wait for blood, and each hunts his brother with a net. Their hands are upon what is evil, to do it diligently-the prince and the judge ask for a bribe, and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul, thus they weave it together..Micah 7:2-3.

Tony said (October 2, 2011):

The masonic control of Canada's courts is not surprising. It's probably more than 30 years ago that a friend of mine, when I lived in Idaho, went through a very one-sided divorce. His wife was a worthless bitch yet she got everything including the kids she had poisoned against their father. He was a "patriot" type, attending meetings on common law, etc. and therefore known to state government agents (feds too, I'm sure) who were snooping on us all the time, everywhere.

During the course of his battle with the courts he discovered, as he told me directly, that every last judge in Idaho was a Freemason. He found this out when he tried to get his case moved to a non prejudiced court. Probably all the lawyers find it best to join also.

In Idaho, when there is an opening for a judge, that judge is first appointed to office. After that he must stand for RE-election, not election, to the office. Usually he runs unopposed. Sweet little fix. I imagine all the states have some such setup that insures the courts are run by Masons.

On a close note, are you aware that at one time in at least part of Canada Jews could not testify in court due to their ability to yearly take the Kol Nidre (all vows) oath which absolved them of keeping any other oath before they even took it? This, of course gave Jews license to lie under oath in court. The oath is from the Talmud book Nedarim. If you don't have access but would care to read the text I can copy it for you.


This English wording was copied many years ago out of the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"Three times the cantor . . . intones the words:
All vows, obligations, oaths . . . whether called 'konam,' 'konas,' or by any other name, which we may vow or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed, absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect . . . The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligations; nor the oaths be oaths."

There is more of the congregational response, etc., but that is the wording of the oath.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at