I must admit that
despite the many years I have dedicated to finding the true answer to
one simple question and the volumes of evidence compiled in support of
the seemingly inescapable conclusions that 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,
is
NOT directly included within the definition of the word "person" as
defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, and the CRA does
NOT
have the constitution jurisdiction
and legislative authority to levy an income tax on the private
property of a natural person, it would be nice to obtain some clear
and unequivocal official confirmation
as to whether or not
these
conclusions had
any validity.
Nevertheless,
considering the repetitive pattern of evasive behaviour the CRA, and
to some degree the government in general, has displayed over the
years, it serves me right for foolishly expecting open and honest
communications from a government that, despite its preaching of transparency,
appears to be nothing more than puppets of the global elite.
After all,
once you see for yourself that the government is willing to lie,
cheat, and steal when it come to income taxes, then why would you
expect them to be telling the truth about being open and transparent.
Apparently, these words are merely pacifying sound bites that are
whispered in the ears of the populace, keeping them feeling warm and
cozy as they sleep their lives away with dreams of being taken care of
from cradle to grave.
Anyways, over the
years I periodically succumbed to the hope that perhaps someone in an
official capacity would have the courage and integrity to openly
confirm or deny the
seemingly
inescapable conclusions that have been reached.
|
2002
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien |
One
moment of hope began shortly after the writing of numerous letters to
various departments of the federal government proved to be all for
not. In December of 2002 I wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister
Jean Chrétien.
If you
have previously visited the Inside Paradigm page you
most likely have already read the first letter I wrote in search of some official confirmation.
However, if you haven't yet had the opportunity to read it, click on
the following link.
|
Click Here
To
Read The Letter To
Prime Minister
Jean Chrétien
|
|
PS. Don't bother looking for
his
response, as none was ever received.
A few years later, in 2005, I
succumbed to my hope again, but this time I thought I would incur the expense
and send a registered letter asking one simple question, along with a copy of
Paradigm's "Income Tax Is No Longer As Certain As Death" brochure, to every
federal MP and provincial MLA in Canada.
You would think that with 1145
letters going to individuals we're taught to trust and respect, my chances of
receiving a clear and unequivocal answer to one simple question would be greatly
improved. Think again.
Now this is not to say I never
received any responses. In fact, I received a total of 12. Yeah I know,
approximately 1% response is pathetic, but considering even one
clear and unequivocal answer
to one simple question
would have been enough to preserve my faith in the political system, my hope was
somewhat renewed.
That was of course until I
started reading the actual contents of the responses I did receive.
To date I have received a total of 12 responses. 6 were merely acknowledgements of receipt of my letter and brochure,
5 were what
could be easily called brief “non-responses”, and one, which I had to chuckle as
I read it, was a response informing me the MP had "passed the buck",
so to speak, on to the then Minister of National Revenue, the then Honourable John McCallum.
To
read the registered letter that was sent to every MP & MLA in Canada
in 2005, as well as each of the 12 Reponses, click on the
appropriate link.
PS.
There have been no further responses since this posting.
|
2007 ~ Prime
Minister Stephen Harper |
This brings us to 2007. One
night while feeling all hope for a clear and unequivocal answer to one simple
question was all but lost, I was watching the Propaganda channel, I mean the News
channel, and I caught the end of an interview between a reporter and Jay Hill, the Conservative's Party Whip.
The Party Whip is the guy who's job it is to ensure your elected representatives don't represent you.
Anyways, he sounded sincere as he told the reporter what an honest man Prime
Minister Mr. Harper was, and how he was a man of integrity.
Succumbing to my hope that the
words he was speaking weren't just more of the same pacifying sound bites of the
past, I felt encouraged by believing that if his words were true, then
Prime Minister Harper would
provide me
clear and unequivocal official
confirmation as
to whether or not the
seemingly inescapable
conclusions of our research were accurate.
Here's the letter I sent to
Prime Minister Harper. At the time of this writing I was only aware of a total
of 11 responses to the letter I sent to every federal MP and provincial MLA back
in 2005, not all 12 as we previously discussed. In addition, I think it
only fair to warn you it's a bit lengthy, 6 pages to be exact. Considering the
results of my past efforts, I wanted to ensure that the Prime Minister had a
clear understanding of the one simple question I was asking.
Within a few weeks I
got a response, sort of. It wasn't written personally by Prime
Minister Harper, but on behalf of him, by his Executive
Correspondence Officer, L.A. Lavell. Here it is, and may I suggest you
read it very carefully and very thoroughly, as it appears to speak
volumes.
This response was
all I ever received, even the Minister of National Revenue, the
Honourable Carol Skelton, never felt it necessary to provide a response after she
was made aware of my comments. So the question is, is this
an official confirmation or what?
Well, let's consider
the two possible answers to this question. First, for fun let's
take the position that this is not an official confirmation, and
imagine the kind of conclusion a naysayer might jump to and a typical
type of response he would have.
|
.Ned
The
Naysayer
|
 |
.
Well, just
because you received a letter, which by the way is nothing
more than a standard template letter acknowledging receipt of your
letter, and just because neither the Prime Minister or the
Minister of National Revenue answered your question within a
reasonable time, to suggest that this is some kind of official
confirmation and that you have some kind of rights the
government didn't give you, is totally ludicrous. You're so
stupid.
Humph...You
guys are all the same. Just think about it, you moron. If you
don't pay your fair share then how are we going to pay for the
roads?
.
|
Okay, that may have
been a little over the top, but you get my point.
Nevertheless, Ned
has a right to his opinion, even though it's clear he really didn't
understand what was written in both the letter and the response. Too bad his sunglasses were a little too
dark to see what was right in front of his face. After all, I'd hate
to think Ned is intentionally choosing to be wilfully blind.
Now even though the
Prime Minister or the Minister of National Revenue never provided a
clear and unequivocal answer to the one simple question asked in the
letter, is it reasonable to conclude that this response, and the
absence of any other response within a reasonable time,
constituents an official confirmation, albeit tacit.
In fact,
the alternative would require a reasonable person to conclude,
especially after considering the letter as a whole, the repetitive
assurances expressed in the response, as well as the fact that if this
isn't an official confirmation, albeit tacit, that the Prime Minister
is not a
man of integrity, and as such, he dishonoured his position of public
trust and intentionally remained silent to knowingly cause harm to
others. Which, be it true or not, I see no evidence that this is the
case.
In closing, whether
this response and the absence of any other response can actually be
considered to be an official confirmation or not, I'll leave for each
individual to decide for them self.
However, considering I
also wrote this letter on behalf of other natural persons who have
diligently spent their time and energy studying their human rights and
fundamental freedoms,
those who are also aware of the doctrines of Public Law Estoppel and
Legitimate Expectation ought to, after years of sincerely seeking
official confirmation, be able to finally sleep through the night with the comfort of being officially
assured that a
natural person
is
NOT directly included within the definition of the word "person" as
defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, and the CRA does
NOT have the constitution jurisdiction and
legislative authority to levy an income tax on the private property of
a natural person.
This last section is
where we'll post more examples of other types of confirmations that
have knowingly or unknowingly slipped through the lips of
those who know.
To facilitate the
sharing of these other confirmations we will post them as they are
submitted, which may be a bit slower than other submissions on this
site as fear still has powerful grip on those who feel Canada's
whistle blower legislation lacks the protection they feel they need.
As time will
show, these types of
more subtle confirmations can come from anywhere. Such as from brave whistle blowers who can
no longer live with themselves looking the other way, or as the first
example shows, from individuals who've educated themselves enough to know
the proper questions to ask.
I'm sure as
the Tax Game moves closer to its last days of existence, more and more
people, be they from inside the CRA, professional associations, or the
populace in general will be willing to share the confirmations they've
been privy to. So for now, we'll start by sharing a few examples of
subtle confirmations we have been made aware
of.
The first example is
in regards to the T-5018 Contract Reporting System. An individual was
under contract with a business owner that believed he needed to issue
a T-5018 as purportedly required. When the individual brought in the
appropriate forms to educate the business owner of the legislative
reality that the company was not required to issue a T-5018 slip in
regards to
a
natural person carrying on a business without reasonable expectation
for profit, regardless if he/she makes more than $30,000 or not, as
under these conditions a natural person is not even required to
register for GST,
the business owner asked the individual to explain his understanding
to the company's
Charter Accountant.
Within seconds after
the individual reiterated his understanding to the company's Chartered
Accountant, the account, nodding in agreement, replied,
"Yeah, I know what your saying is
correct, but were told not to talk about it."
I wonder who the
Chartered Accountant was referring to when she said,
"we're told not to talk about it."
Even though we all may never know for
sure, I think it's safe to assume she was referring to the association
of Chartered Accountants.
The sad thing about
this assumption, if in fact she was referring to her professional
association, is that this would mean that some professional associations
are intentionally acting in collusion with the CRA to keep the masses
subjected to a life of economic servitude, and in an attempt by some
within these associations to protect their own individual vested
interests, they're collectively becoming wilful accomplices to the
biggest fraud in Canadian history.
Another example of a subtle confirmation comes from the transcripts of the R. vs. Sydel case.
However, this one is a lot more technical than the first example, as
understanding what was actually said requires a fairly good
understanding of the definition of a couple of words from subsection
248(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Jamie Morrison, an agent of the CRA, when being cross-examined about
some diary notes made by another agent, inadvertently let it slip that
the "taxpayer", and the
"delinquent tax filer"
which is one example of a
word or expression descriptive of a "person", therefore is a "person"
as defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, such as the
"legal representative",
are not one and the same.
|
Morison’s
Testimony on Day-4, Pg.72, Line1-7 in the Sydel Case |
|
.
1
A I don't know, I didn't make the note.
2 Q
Well, what do you think third party means? Does
3
it have any meaning or is it nonsense?
4
A Well, it usually means --
5 Q
The taxpayer?
6 A Yeah, the
third party
(taxpayer, as defined in the Income Tax Act)
is somebody separated from
7 the --
from the delinquent tax filer.
(person,
as defined in the Income Tax Act.
ie. legal representative)
.
Parentheses and italics mine
|
The importance of understanding this distinction is because the CRA
adamantly holds tight to their unsubstantiated position that a natural person, "taxpayer", and "legal representative" are all one and the same.
Yet Morrison's own testimony makes it clear that when the words
"third
party"
are used in diary notes they usually mean the "taxpayer", and as he
said himself, the "taxpayer" is
somebody separated from
the
"delinquent
tax filer".
Well let's think this
through... Even if a
"delinquent tax filer"
was a natural person acting in their own capacity, which it's not as
it can only be a natural person to the extent they act in the capacity
of "legal representative" which is included in the definition of the
word "person" and
"delinquent tax filer"
is merely a word or expression descriptive of a "person", then
even Morrison's own testimony confirms the fact that the "taxpayer",
is neither the
"delinquent tax filer",
the "legal representative" or the "person", all of which can be one
and the same.
Whether Morrison
knowingly or unknowingly let these words slip through his lips, his
subtle confirmation itself exposes
the intentional deception behind the CRA's unsubstantiated position that a natural person, "taxpayer", and "legal representative" are all one and the same.
|
