This page is in
relation to the constant barrage of official propaganda that's
produced and disseminated by the CRA in an attempt to keep everyone,
from layman to professional, asking the wrong questions and believing
they were actually born without the gift of inalienable human rights
and fundamental freedoms.
As you proceed you
may want to keep in mind the fact that for someone to be able to
creatively produce effective propaganda with the use of manipulative
language, they must first be aware of the truth so not to
inadvertently expose it. This reality, in and of itself, is evidence
of the fact that those responsible for the production and
dissemination of official propaganda, are doing so with full knowledge
and intent to deceive the people of Canada.
Before getting into
the serious side of this topic take a moment to watch what I assume is
a CRA public relations commercial that never passed the Warm & Fuzzy
Test.
The CRA
Media Room
is
perhaps the best place to start looking for official propaganda, as it
appears to be the most concentrated source of propaganda you'll find
relating to income tax and GST.
In addition to
finding links to their News Releases, which are nothing more than
reminders of how well the majority of society has accepted the concept
of economic servitude, we can find a list of links to many other
interesting topics such as a link to their now infamous "Myth Sheets",
which we previously examined on page 4 of this site's online Advance course, as well as side bar links to Fact Sheets,
Tax Tips, and a section entitled, Convictions.
Providing an in-depth
analysis of every page and article available on this site being way too
time consuming, I'll leave that task to you to do in your spare time
and simply focus on a few of the more obvious pieces of propaganda
designed to perpetuate the Illusion.
The
first piece we can look at is the CRA's Brochure,
RC4406.
Will You Do It For Cash
Below is a copy of the
first of 4 panels. However, for fun I encourage you to read the whole
thing with a bit of deductive reasoning and critical thinking, as
you're sure to see the same assertive use of unqualified language
designed to keep those still lost in the Illusion pacified that their
master is on top of dealing with the growing resurgence of natural
commerce.
I hope you remember
what natural commerce is. It's the way we exchanged our goods and
services before our collective trust in our elected government was used
against us by a few to economically enslave us under the colour of law
to allow the
international banking cartel to financially rape us and this country's
natural resources.
 |
Interesting
unqualified question isn't it? Well let's look at what they
have to say if your answer is an unqualified yes.
|
|
Apparently,
according to this official looking piece of propaganda, cash
payments are subject to GST/HST and you have to report them on
your annual income tax returns. In addition, any failure to do so
is tax evasion, which has serious consequences.
|
|
Hmm, interesting assertion...I wonder if they
mean ALL cash payments made by everyone acting in any capacity
or just the few types of cash payments that are made by or to
someone acting in a capacity that would subject them to obligations under Income Tax Act and Part IX of the Excise Tax
Act (GST)? |
|
I sure hope the latter
is the case, otherwise I'm sure at some time in our lives
everyone of us, including our children, have committed the
apparently
heinous crime of exchanging our private property for cash, and
are now guilty of tax evasion. |
|
Let's get real people,
we all can't be so dumbed down that we actually believe what is
expressed on the face of this brochure as the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. Call me naive, but I would like
to think that even the most willfully blind soul-selling agent
of the CRA has to be able to see through this blatantly obvious piece of
propaganda. |
Nevertheless, it's
obvious by looking at the rest of the brochure why the Public Relations division of the
CRA thinks it's a great piece of work.
The first part of
Panel 2 was used to display a fear based point form warning of what is
expected from their "taxpayer's" "legal representative" and the price
they'll pay if they refuse or neglect to blindly obey as the good
sheep they were trained to be.
The balance of Panel 2
and the whole of
Panel 3 was used for a bit of sweet sounding
reassurances to keep the sheep feeling warm and fuzzy as they're
getting sheared. However, it's important to remember that even though
the master has personally acknowledged that "Taxes can be
complicated" and has provided a
reassuring list of services being offered to clear up any
uncertainties, please don't expect to use these services in search of
a clear and unequivocal answer.
After all, how
profitable would it be if the master were to set up a service that was
actually authorized to be honest with sheep, and obligated to tell
them they're not really sheep but human beings with the inalienable
rights and freedoms who have a common law right to
structure their affairs so they fall outside the scope of the taxing
acts.
Panel 4 is obviously
reserved for a bit of bragging of how well they've been able to shear
the sheep who tried hiding in the bushes or who started thinking for
themselves, as well as a place to remind the rest of the sheep of
their recently developed Sheep Help Shear Sheep System, which is
officially named the Contract Payment Reporting System due to the
tongue twisting characteristics of the more appropriate title.
What is the Contract
Payment Reporting System, you ask? Not to worry, along with its T5018
form, we'll discuss this reporting system a bit more in-depth later,
but first let's finish reviewing Panel 4 of this brochure.
In all fairness, from
a PR perspective you really can't blame them for using Panel 4 for a
bit of bragging. After all, if you can show the rest of the sheep a
brutally sheared carcass or two they'll be much more inclined to
voluntarily come forward for a much more gentler fleecing.
Panel 4 closes off
with perhaps the biggest piece of propaganda in this whole brochure,
with the line, "We would be happy to answer any question you
may have." Give me a break!
If you
think this is true, try contacting one of the master's many minions and
ask them
the following question...
|
.
Is a natural
person, as defined in
the Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th
Ed., by John A. Yogis, Q.C.,
acting in their own capacity for their own benefit,
directly included
within the definition of the word "person" as defined in
subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act?
.
|
Short of some kind of
miracle where you get a clear and unequivocal yes or no answer, the
following section called Predictable Propaganda will show you what
you'll
most likely get as a response, especially if you send them a letter asking
this question in writing.
|
T5018 -
Contract Payment Reporting System |
This brings us to
point where we can start exposing the reality behind the T5018 form
and the Contract Payment Reporting System. In
short,
the Contract Payment Reporting System is a fairly new tracking system
developed a few years ago by CRA in an attempt to clamp down on
non-compliance within the construction industry. If you're not in the
construction industry this section may not be of much interest.
However, if you are, learning how to see through this piece of
official propaganda is nothing short of an imperative.
Unlike many industries,
the construction industry is transitory. This type of industry is
ideal for natural commerce to flourish. In general, it's made up of a
multitude of different specialized trades men and women who come
together for short periods of time to do their part of the whole
project. Once a project is completed the contractors disperse and may
never work together on the same jobsite for months or even years,
leaving little, if any, consistent paper trail.
The only quasi-stable
constant in this industry is the general contractor, who I'm sure has
more important things to do than act as an unpaid tracking agent for
the government. But under the threat of a penalty for each failure of
$25 a day, with a minimum penalty of $100 up to a maximum of $2,500,
some will make an attempt to comply with this reporting system by
filling out a T-5018 slip for every one they contracted with. Again,
like any of the CRA's systems of plunder they only seem mandatory, and
will only work as long as a collective ignorance is maintained.
What is a T-5018 you
ask? The T-5018 is the tracking slip, known as a Statement of
Contract Payments. A general contractor who makes payments to
subcontractors for construction services is required to complete a
Statement of Contract Payments and a Summary of Contract Payments
(T5018 Summary). However, as with most things in the Illusion this
requirement seems broad and all encompassing.
When
we analyze the definitions of the words used to create these so
called mandatory requirements we will see the limitations of its
true meaning. Once again we'll see that a natural person's rights
are not infringed upon, they just look like they are. This following
excerpt is from the CRA's General Information section of the T-5018
Summary. The whole form is available from CRA's website.
|
General
Information Section of the T-5018 Summary |
|
.
A
subcontractor is an individual, partnership, trust, or
corporation (as defined by the Income Tax Act)
that provides construction services to a business.
Subcontractors include individuals or businesses that are
goods and services tax / harmonized sales tax (GST/HST)
registrants, and non-GST/HST registrants that are below the
$30,000 limit for GST/HST registration purposes. You do not
need to report payments to subcontractors for services such as
bookkeeping, janitorial, or legal.
.
(Italics Mine)
|
Did you see
through the Illusion? If not, let's take it a bit slower. As you
know, or can easily find out by looking up the definition of
"individual" and "commercial activity" in subsection 123(1) of Part
IX of the Excise tax Act, a natural person carrying on a business
without reasonable expectation for profit, regardless if he/she
makes more than $30,000 or not, is not even required to register for
GST. Because of this verifiable fact, they do not fall under the
category of a "registrant", or "non-GST/HST registrants that are
below the $30,000 limit for GST/HST registration purposes".
Therefore, with a
bit of deductive reasoning a general contractor can see through the
propaganda of the official story and finally release any fear of
penalties as they become more confident that they are not legally
required to issue a T-5018 to CRA containing the private information
of a natural person. This is just another example of official
propaganda we all need to share with others so they too can release
themselves from the Illusion.
The next piece of
propaganda we need to look at is in relation to what we call, The GST
Trap. This trap is sprung by using the mail to deliver a knowingly
fabricated letter which effectively thanks you for applying for a GST
Business Number, despite the fact you never made such an application.
|
Typical Thank
You For Applying Letter |
 |
Note the date of this
letter, January, 2003. Well this is only one of many we've compiled over
the years dating back many years before 2003 to recent times.
The one
thing in common most of the recipients of these
fraudulent documents have is they never even made an application. In
fact, many of them were carrying on a business in their capacity as a
natural person without a reasonable expectation of profit and weren't
legally required to register for the GST.
With
that being the case, the only reason the CRA's intentional mail fraud
scheme even works at all is that many of these natural persons have no
knowledge of the legislative restriction of the meaning of "commercial
activity".
What's
the cause of this lack of knowledge? It's simple, unwarranted blind
trust in our government. As the propaganda machine fires up to spew
out sound bites in relation to the GST, efforts are taken to intentionally
avoid making any mention of this legislative restriction within the
official story.
Basically the official story is, if you make or provide a "taxable
supply" in the course of a "commercial activity" you must register
for GST, unless you are a "small supplier" because your business
income is below the $30,000 limit.
Considering the lack of any mention of the
legislative restriction of the meaning of "commercial activity",
the official story is obviously just another fine piece of propaganda.
After all, if a person has never looked up the definitions of the
words, "taxable supply", "commercial activity" or "small supplier"
they're bound to rely on the common meaning of these words in their
understanding of the official story.
So how
does the CRA get away with creating fraudulent documents and the use
of the mail to perpetuate their fraud? After all, if you or I were to
do such a thing we'd end up behind bars for creating fraudulent
documents, mail fraud, and what ever else they could charge us with.
Based on
our experience, the answer appears to be clear. With the use of fear,
threats, and intimidation the powers to be have conditioned those with
statutory titles of "professionalism" to become so reliant and
emotionally attached to their false identity they're too afraid to
step out of the status quo of their profession and challenge the
actions of the CRA, even in the face of empirical evidence of a crime.
I
know this answer may sound like an unfounded opinion teetering on the edge
of being judgmental. However, it's not, its based on reality and
therefore it's actually a discerned observation based on factual
events.
A while
ago an individual contacted one of the top law firms in the lower
mainland. After presenting the empirical evidence of the CRA's
fraudulent document, as well as proof the CRA used the mail to deliver
it, to the firms top GST lawyer who specialized in GST since its
inception, the reality behind the idea of justice for all became
apparent. Instead of the lawyer inquiring further into the merit of
the allegations, he merely resigned himself to the emerging police
state with words to the effect, "Well it's the government, they
can do whatever they want."
Sad but
true, so now any faith we had in the idea that lawyers were
independent seekers of truth and justice is all but gone, as it
appears that despite the level of expertise and competence a
professional may have, some of them have become nothing more than
passive puppets of the Illusion, for fear of being subjected to the same
abusive tactics of the CRA and possible selective persecution from
their own professional association for questioning the master.
This section is where
the CRA proudly displays their trophies of victory over those who
didn't know who they were, and those who knew who they were but
thought the knowledge of this fact alone was sufficient to defend
themselves against the inexhaustible resources of the Illusion's
financial control division.
As you surf around
their online trophy room however, you can't help but notice the strange
absence of any mention of those who "got away", so to speak. Perhaps this is because
publicizing
information such as this would undermine the effect their propaganda
is designed to achieve. After all, the last thing you would want any of
your "voluntary" slaves to learn is the fact that income tax is no
longer as certain as death.
Nevertheless, with a bit of guidance anyone can sift through the list
of convictions and find the ones that are used to try to discredit the
information of the predominant existence of inalienable human rights
and fundamental freedoms presented by Paradigm.
There's
no doubt this is done in an attempt to convince the masses
that the CRA has the constitutional jurisdiction and legislative
authority to levy an income tax on the private property of a natural
person who is receiving amounts while acting in their own capacity for
their own benefit, or more precisely put, a natural person who is
acting in any capacity, natural or otherwise, other than the capacity
of "legal representative" of a federally created artificial person
known, and defined within subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, as
a "taxpayer".
Virtually every conviction relating to failing to file or failing to
comply to a demand letter can be eliminated, as anyone who has spend
some time studying the information presented by Paradigm has no
challenge with filing, if and when required to do so, or even
complying with a demand for information letter from the CRA.
After
all, once an individual comes to realize the definition of the word
"person" in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act could not possibly
directly include a natural person acting in their own capacity for
their own benefit without violating predominant legislation such as
the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as
well as numerous principles of fundamental law, filing a return for the
amounts received to the extent they acted in the capacity of "legal
representative of a "taxpayer", or complying with a demand for
information about the activities they performed in this capacity for
the "taxpayer", is a legal obligation they're willing to perform. And
why not, especially if no amounts were received and no activities were
performed to the extent they acted in the capacity of "legal
representative" of a "taxpayer".
Here is
one example of a conviction which appears to support the CRA's implied
mantra, "You Blink, You Breathe, You Pay".
Give it a read through first and then we'll discuss the reality behind
this piece of propaganda when you're finished.
Esquimalt flooring installer pleads guilty to tax evasion
Victoria, British Columbia, June 4, 2007…. Esquimalt
resident, Ryan McGinn, pleaded guilty today in Provincial Court
in Victoria to tax evasion. He was fined $12,400, sentenced to
eight months probation and ordered to complete 15 hours of
community service.
McGinn had been filing returns that reported “nil” income
since 1990. By contacting third party flooring contractors that
McGinn provided services to, Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA)
Enforcement Division was able to obtain invoices and cancelled
cheques. These showed McGinn did not report income of $91,879
for 2003 and 2004 tax years. This income resulted in $11,773 of
tax that McGinn tried to evade.
In addition, McGinn did not collect and remit Goods and
Services Tax of $4,745 in 2004.
It was also determined that McGinn had contact with a group
known as “Paradigm”, which teaches Canadians that as “natural
persons” their income is not subject to taxation and they do not
have an obligation to report it to the CRA. Canada's courts have
rejected this argument. “Tax evasion costs all of us,” said
Karen Etches, Assistant Director of Enforcement. “The job of our
investigators and auditors is to make sure that all Canadians
pay the tax they owe.”
When individuals or corporations are convicted of tax
evasion, they have to pay the full amount of tax owing, plus
interest, and any penalties the CRA assesses. In addition, the
court may, on summary conviction, fine them up to 200% of the
tax evaded and sentence them to a two-year jail term. Under the
Income Tax Act, the CRA may also assess a penalty of up
to 50% of the tax evaded or the benefit improperly claimed.
The information in this news release was obtained from the
court records.
Further information on convictions can also be found in the
Media room
on the CRA website at www.cra.gc.ca/convictions.
|
Looks
like CRA's implied mantra,
"You Blink, You Breathe, You Pay"
is true, doesn't it? Well it should, considering propaganda is
an art form and the PR division of the CRA has been perfecting their
skills for years, anything less would be unacceptable.
If
fact, you should be left with the impression that the CRA has the
constitutional jurisdiction and legislative authority to levy an income
tax on the private property of a natural person, despite the Income
Tax Act's lack of a notwithstanding clause as required by section 2 of
the Canadian Bill of Rights and subsection 33(1) of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Now
let's back up the train a bit and look at exactly what was written and
more importantly what wasn't written. But first let me qualify my
understanding of what I know of this matter. Not being in a position
to hear the story first hand from McGinn himself, I'll do my best to
reiterate what was shared with me by someone who was.
First
you'll notice that it mentions McGinn pleaded guilty in
Provincial Court in Victoria to tax evasion and he was fined $12,400,
sentenced to eight months probation and ordered to complete 15 hours
of community service.
However, what it doesn't mention is the fact that no trial was
conducted and this conviction was the result of a plea bargain,
perhaps due to the fact that in all practicality McGinn was in no
position, financial or otherwise, to go up against the inexhaustible
resources and legal expertise of the CRA.
Second, I'm sure you noticed their mentioning of a $12,400 fine,
eight months probation, and 15 hours of community service. However,
what they didn't mention was that in addition to these being the
negotiated terms of the plea bargain, McGinn, much to the amazement
of his lawyer, negotiated away the inclusion of any penalties being
attached to the alleged taxation amount.
The
next thing that warrants our attention is the date in the sentence
where they mention,
"McGinn had been filing returns that reported “nil” income since 1990".
This appears to a similar approach taken by Turnnir, as we already
discussed on the Natural Person Case Law page, where
he attempted to back date his knowledge.
Considering Paradigm's first ever seminar was in spring of 2002,
having returns filed for as far back as 1990 raises the extreme
probability that for many of the years he filed he had absolutely no
idea how to restructure his affairs properly to fall outside the
scope of the taxing act, or even the fact that it was his common law
right to do so.
In any event, whether he had his affairs
structured properly or not for the fourteen or so years it appears he
filed for, negotiating a plea bargain that only attached to two years
of tracked earnings not only says a lot about his skill as a
negotiator, but says a lot about the lack of veracity of CRA's implied mantra
"You Blink, You Breathe, You Pay".
Another
lesser point we can take note of is the fact that apparently McGinn
reported “nil” income on the returns he did file. Now any one who has
continued their study of the information that has been presented through
Paradigm over the years, be it on their own or in a study group, would
have known that section 3 paragraph (f) of the Income Tax Act makes it
very clear that in a case where the "taxpayer" has no income for the
year from an "office", "employment", "business" or "property", the
"taxpayer" shall be deemed to have income for the year in an amount
equal to zero, not nil.
Moving on... the fourth paragraph is a great example of how well the
propaganda skills of the CRA's PR division have been perfected.
The first part contains an unqualified sentence which states, "It was also determined
that McGinn had contact with a group known as “Paradigm”, which
teaches Canadians that as “natural persons” their income is not
subject to taxation and they do not have an obligation to report it
to the CRA."
So
what does this mean? Are we supposed to conclude that just because
McGinn had
"contact with Paradigm",
the information presented through Paradigm is fundamentally flawed
and the CRA does in fact, and in law, have the constitutional
jurisdiction and legislative authority to levy an income tax on the
private property of a natural person, despite the Income Tax Act's
lack of a notwithstanding clause as required by section 2 of the
Canadian Bill of Rights and subsection 33(1) of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms?
Of
course, that's what they would like us to conclude, but notice how
they themselves won't make such a bold declaration. They merely
include an unqualified and irrelevant statement containing a
creative use of quotation makes around the word "natural person"
leaving the impression they have no idea what one is, and hope we
all will make all the false connections they want us to make, thus
becoming your own worst enemy and leaving them with clean hands as
we enslave ourselves with our own ignorance.
The
second part of the fourth paragraph, where it states, “Tax
evasion costs all of us,” said Karen Etches, Assistant Director of
Enforcement. “The job of our investigators and auditors is to make
sure that all Canadians pay the tax they owe.”,
as well as the fifth paragraph which provides the predictable dose
of fear, is even further evidence of their ability to create
propaganda out of thin air. By having this statement follow right
after the unqualified statement referring to McGinn's contact with Paradigm, it's
rather obvious they're hoping we'll make the false connection
between the information being presented through Paradigm and tax
evasion.
They're
good, I'll give them that. Too bad they're public servants and their
duty is to "serve the public" and not "serve up the public to the
international bankers". Nevertheless, as these pieces of
intentionally deceptive propaganda continue to pile up and become
easier to identify by the general populace, those government agents
who are planning on a nice retirement with a lucrative pension may
want to consider modifying their plans to suit more confined quarters.
As
you surf around the CRA's Media Room looking for other pieces of
propaganda, it should become easier to isolate the ones that are
designed to promote the CRA's implied mantra, "You Blink, You
Breathe, You Pay" as the truth.
In
fact, simply by searching for a case that makes a reference to
Paradigm will narrow your search dramatically, as dealing heads up in
an open and honest manner with the information presented through
Paradigm is too much for them to handle for fear of exposing the
validity of the information presented through Paradigm.
As
we've seen in the release of the McGinn conviction ,they would rather
resort to using a typical propaganda technique of diversion to try
to get you to ignore the validity of the information, and focus their
propaganda with defamatory remarks towards Paradigm. In other words,
if they can't attack the message, they'll attack the messengers.
In
closing of this section, I'll try to leave you with a bit of
information that may assist you in analyzing any future
conviction releases to see if they are worthy of consideration or
nothing more than additional pieces of propaganda. The following is
a list of a few essential elements you can first check to see if
they were present, and second, check to see if they have been addressed
appropriately, both by the CRA and the courts.
|
A Few
Essential Elements |
|
.
1
|
.
Has
the one simple question presented herein been raised and
presented as a point in issue in the case?
.
|
|
2
|
.
Has the CRA fulfilled its
obligation of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a natural
person is directly included in the definition of "person" by
presenting a parallel to Paradigm's wholistic analysis of the
use of the word "person" as defined in subsection 248(1) of
the Income Tax Act?
.
|
|
3
|
.
Has the court, in relation to
the CRA's parallel wholistic analysis, properly applied the
principles of interpretation in respect of the principles of
fundamental law as recently expressed by the Supreme Court of
Canada in R. vs. McIntosh, 1995?
.
|
After years of
individuals from all across this country seeking clear and unequivocal
answers to simple yet qualified questions, we've been able to isolate another
predictable pattern of evasive behaviour on part of the CRA and it's
agents. Apparently, it doesn't seem to matter who you are or
exactly how you phrase your questions, the response you'll get
is now fairly predictable.
Fortunately however,
as the years of others asking the same or similar simple questions
passed, we have
been able to compile virtually every one of the CRA's diversionary
propaganda laden template paragraphs they use in different combinations
to send back as a lame excuse for a clear and unequivocal answer to a
few simple questions. The following are a few of the more commonly
used paragraphs.
These first couple of
paragraphs are taken directly from a letter received by a business
owner who was making an inquiry regarding the constitutional
jurisdiction and legislative authority of the federal government to
attach statutory conditions to a private employment contract of a
natural person acting in their own capacity for their own benefit.
After
an initial read it could appear that the business owners inquiries
were specifically addressed. However, when you reread these paragraphs
and insert the appropriate definitions of certain words from subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act
it's clear to see that not only were the business owner's specific and
qualified inquires totally ignored, but what was provided could easily
be classified as intentional deceptive propaganda.
For example, if the sentence
which states, "Under this provision,
employers are required to withhold tax at source when salary,
wages and certain other types of compensatory payments are made to
an employee."
is rewritten with the Income Tax Act's meaning of
these bolded words in mind, this sentence could actually read as
follows;
"Under this provision,
"persons" from whom an officer receives an officer's remuneration
are required to
withhold tax at source when payments of
income
of a "taxpayer" from an "office" or "employment"
as computed under subdivision a of Division B of Part I, and includes
all fees received for services
not rendered in the course of the "taxpayer's"
"business",
are made to an officer."
Now ask yourself, does this
second more technically accurate sentence express what you thought the
first sentence meant? Of course not, perhaps this is why they like
having the ability to manipulate the meaning of common words in statutes. They now can
easily deceive you by saying one thing and meaning
another.
So with a bit better
understanding of the answer that was sent in response to a question
regarding the
constitutional jurisdiction and
legislative authority of the federal government to attach statutory
conditions to a private employment contract of a natural person acting
in their own capacity for their own benefit, I trust it's clear to see
the question wasn't answered.
The next collection of
paragraphs are directly from the same response sent to the business
owner, however these are the more common template paragraphs you'll
see appearing in many different types of responses, especially those
sent by natural person's asking the one simple question we've been
asking for years now.
The first one we'll
look at makes the claim that the individual asking the question has
received misleading information.
Now ask yourself, if your inquiry makes no mention of income tax being unconstitutional
and never in any way, shape, or form challenges the federal government's
legal authority to collect taxes, what would be the reason for his
claim that you must have received misleading information?
After all, you simply
asked one simple question, without any attached opinions or
conclusions that could possibly warrant such a response that you
received misleading information.
Nevertheless, even if
you were to provide more details surrounding the information you
received, and in response they claim that you received misleading
information, than it would stand to reason that for their statement to
be anything more than a nice sounding propaganda sound bite they
should be ready, willing, and able to provide you the implicitly
available "accurate
information" they must be relying in support of their claim.
Again, don't hold your
breath and good luck trying to get any more out of them than these few
common template paragraphs. In fact, these are used so frequently that
it's beginning to appear that regardless of what actual question you
ask, if the language used carries any tone other than complete and
utter submission, a combination of these template paragraphs are all you'll get.
This second paragraph
is an interesting one when you look at what it doesn't say and
consider it against the impression most have of the CRA being above
the law.
Here we are in a
society where most live in fear of the CRA and yet this supposedly all
powerful agency openly admits it does not control or censor
what Canadians
discuss about income tax matters. Well perhaps this is a clue, and
even though the CRA admits it does not
control or censor,
the
truth of the matter is the CRA can not control or censor what Canadians say because they aren't as powerful as they would like everyone to
believe, and the people have rights and freedoms that even the biggest
illusion can't destroy.
Another
interesting thing to note in this second paragraph is the careful use
of certain words in the second sentence, which states,
"Although individuals are entitled to their opinions, taxpayers are,
nonetheless, responsible to their obligation under legislation..."
Finally, I knew it was only a matter of time and they would eventually
acknowledge the rights of the individual, and the "taxpayer's" lack
thereof.
These last two
paragraphs generally show up together so we might as well read them as
such. Now despite the obvious purpose for including a few fear based
propaganda paragraphs in a response in hopes of leaving the reader
thinking of the horrible things the CRA could do to them, instead of
the fact their question was never answered, they are in a sense
technically correct.
In fact, I think it's
fair to say that these paragraphs merely represent a collection of
isolated individuals who never learnt who they are or the rights they
have, and their collective fates are now being used to add support to
a couple of fear based paragraphs in an attempt to create an all
encompassing reality.
However, these
paragraphs in no way express the whole reality behind what happens, or
should I say doesn't happen, to the thousands upon thousands of
individuals out there who have spent the time to learn who they are
and the rights they have in relation to this legal system, as well as
the time to understand the limited constitutional jurisdiction and
legislative authority expressed within the pages of the Income Tax
Act.
The last template
paragraph we'll look at that is commonly used in an attempt to divert
your attention away from the fact that they never answered your one
simple question, actually carries a subtle tone of bribery, or in
other words, is a reminder of the proverbial carrot on a stick.
These excerpts were a
few of the typical template paragraphs that have been repeatedly sent,
albeit in different combinations and quantities, to everyone who wrote
a letter asking simple, yet fundamental questions. So if you attempt
to seek a clear and unequivocal answer to any question that may affect
their bottom line, don't be shocked if all you get
in return is a few of these predictable pieces of propaganda.
If it happens, then
the only thing I can suggest is you write them back addressing the
irrelevancy of the information in each paragraph they provided to you,
in relation to your question, and try once again to reiterate your
question in clearer and more technically precise language, if
possible. This time however, you may want to type your question a bit
slower, as it appears they're having a hard time understanding what is
being asked when someone types at normal speed.
|
The CRA's
Shock & Awe Technique |
Another emerging
pattern which appears to be forming in response to the thousands of
individual's taking personal responsibility and studying the law
themselves to better exercise their inalienable human rights and
fundamental freedoms, is what we'll call, the CRA's Shock and Awe Technique.
This technique is
employed with the use of search and seizure warrants. Now
this may sound weird, especially if you've been raised to believe that
judges don't hand out search and seizure warrants like candy, and when
they do there's reasonable ground to believe a crime has been
committed.
However,
it's amazing what you can do when you have the type of holier than thou
influence of the CRA, and under the guise of
good faith you know how to mask your true objective by picking and
choosing selected pieces of information to create a picture of having
the reasonable
grounds of tax evasion needed for an application for a warrant to be
approved.
In
a sense, you could say that members of the judiciary are being used
like the rest of us. The question
remaining is, are they aware of it, and therefore acting in collusion
with the CRA to preserve the Illusion, or are they merely gullible
puppets being used to
rubber stamp anything the CRA puts in front of them.
You have to wonder
how many warrants to search and seize the private property of a
natural person would the CRA get stamped if a judge asked them to
first provide the evidence that
a natural person is directly included within the definition of
the word "person" in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act. After
all, one would think that without proof of such evidence, being able
to establish reasonable grounds would be virtually impossible
regardless of how
the carefully
selected pieces of information
were put together.
Nevertheless, I'm
sure only time will tell if members of the judiciary are acting in
collusion with the CRA, or whether they're merely being used for a
role they play in society. Until that time comes the CRA's Shock & Awe
Technique is something we have to accept as part of the sad reality of
the Illusion's emerging police state.
The CRA's Shock &
Awe Technique however is very effective for creating propaganda.
Not
only does the presence of armed thugs storming into a business or resident
scare the sheeple back into a corner of the pen, it creates a extreme
burden on the individual, who up until then has probably made several
sincere attempts to communicate with agents of the CRA in an open and
honest manner, but, as the
repetitive pattern of
intentional evasive behavior
has shown, to no avail.
Nevertheless, these Gestapo like raids happen. With a group of
Manchurian candidate like drones the pack leader storms in with warrant in hand
and begins to pilfer through private property looking for more pieces
to pick and choose from in hopes of building
their next tax evasion case.
It's sad really,
many of the participants used in the deployment of the CRA's Shock &
Awe Technique are still conscious enough to know that something about
what they doing just isn't right, yet faced with losing a pay check
they suppress their duty to humanity and follow the orders of their
master like cowardly little children.
One example of this
cowardly behaviour was witnessed first hand by an individual who was
unfortunate enough to be chosen as a potential future CRA Poster Child
of the Year. When his fateful day was upon him and his home was
invaded by a group of drones and their leader, being stirred but not
shaken, he set out to record the identity of each of the drones by
taking a picture of each of their ID badges of dishonour.
Sensing the fear
mounting in the drone's collective behaviour, the leader issued the
following order to quickly cover their badges with their thumb. As
with any well trained drone, they each blindly complied with the order,
once again feeling above the law they swore to uphold.
Fortunately though,
deployments of the
CRA's Shock & Awe Technique
are few and far between, as they're strategically carried out in
selective places to achieve the greatest propaganda effect on society.
Keeping track of the locations where this Shock and Awe Technique is
deployed, it appears the CRA targets are in direct correlation to
areas with higher levels of awakening masses.
You can see how this strategic deployment makes sense from their
perspective. As more and more individuals begin to wake up to the
reality of the Illusion's existence and begin to learn the truth about their true
potential and unlimited capacity, the only hope the CRA has in
preserving its ability to plunder the masses with impunity is to
attempt these public displays of selective prosecution.
And to
some degree it works. At least that's what the CRA agent in charge of
a recent
deployment of the
CRA's Shock & Awe Technique said when asked about the number of agents
it involved,
around 25 to 30, and the amount of money it must cost to undertake
such a deployment. He basically replied
they don't really worry about the cost as these raids are used for advertising, because for every one person who is
in attendance, they're
sure to tell others, and so on, and so on.
Therefore, in addition
to instilling some reaffirming fear into those who have yet to awaken, thus
delaying the time of their awakening, the stage is set for them to
achieve their
ultimate goal of totally destroying an individual, financially,
emotionally, and spiritually, with the hope the individual will drop
back to their knees, and never again be willing to lift their head
towards the light of the truth.
However, depending on the level of awareness of the individual this
goal is not always achieved. In fact, sometimes, even though the CRA
arrogantly hangs the carcass of their latest victim for all the world
to see, the individual becomes empowered with a new sense of passion
for truth and justice, and instead of cowering on their knees in
worship to the Illusion's god of money, they
become an even louder and more influential voice for the Illusion to
deal with.
Nevertheless, with
the
inexhaustible resources obtained from plundering the masses, and with
their ability to use the courts as weapons of mass destruction,
the CRA must
feel the
rewards out weigh the consequences, especially when you consider that a
successful campaign of shock and awe gives the CRA a renewed supply of
raw material to produce a fresh batch of propaganda pabulum for pubic
consumption.
As sad
as these strategic
deployments of the
CRA's Shock & Awe Technique
are, and as intolerable as they should be to the masses, the fact
remains that although the CRA's cowardly tactics are despicable, and
would be totally unnecessary if they could actually answer one simple
question in their favour, they are for now, a part of the sad reality
we face today.
|
