Discussion:
12 year old Daughter becomes embroiled in dad's legal battles with Revenue Canada
(too old to reply)
Alan Baggett
2005-11-07 14:36:42 UTC
Permalink
http://www.canada.com/victoria/story.html?id=e3f9cd15-879e-415e-a0ee-616e47c79751

Taxman goes after girl, 12
Daughter becomes embroiled in dad's legal battles with Revenue Canada

Kim Westad
Times Colonist


Saturday, November 05, 2005

Imagine Abigayle Egeland-Northwood's surprise to find out that she owes
the Canada Revenue Agency $13,000.

She's never had a job, doesn't have a social insurance number and
spends most of her free time playing with her five cats and two dogs.
Oh yes, and she's 12 years old.

"I don't think it's fair because I didn't do anything wrong. I don't
work and I don't drive. I'm just a kid," the girl said in an interview
Friday.

Her parents feel she's being unfairly targeted because of her father's
dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency. Nelson Northwood maintains that
Parliament has not passed a law requiring Canadian citizens to pay
income tax, an argument he lost in court two years ago. He was ordered
to turn over records so the Canada Revenue Agency could collect some
$700,000 they say is owed.

Last week, the agency went to court again and received an order
allowing a bailiff to seize the personal property of the Grade 7
student, up to a value of $13,000.

So on Wednesday, Abbey arrived home to find bailiffs seizing the 1998
Jeep that her mother Karen Egeland transferred to her name in the
spring of 2005.

"I was mad and I was sad. I thought, "Why are they doing this to us?"
Abbey said.

Her father is more blunt.

"She has not been charged with any crime, yet they came up here and
took her private property. They're like witch hunters," Northwood said.

Karen Egeland said there is nothing unlawful about having given her
daughter the vehicle, which Egeland said was hers and not her
husband's.

While Egeland says she doesn't necessarily share her husband's views
about income tax, she says it's unfair that solely because of being a
family and living in the same home, Abbey is being drawn into the
situation and penalized.

"She is not her dad. She's a separate person and she's a child. She
just turned 12," Egeland said.

She worries what the Canada Revenue Agency will come after next of
Abbey's, and also about the long-term implications on her daughter's
name.

Because of confidentiality, Canada Revenue Agency spokesman Dan McGrath
cannot speak about a specific case.

But speaking generally, he said that a section of the Income Tax Act
deals with situations where people who owe taxes may transfer property
or money to family members, regardless of age.

The person to whom the property or money is transferred can themselves
be liable for the taxes, up to the value of the asset transferred to
them, or the asset can be seized, McGrath said.

"We're obliged to take collection action against those who try to put
their assets out of our reach," he said. "The legislation is to prevent
a person from putting assets out of our reach."

This covers transfers to any age of person who is in a "non-arm's
length" relationship, usually interpreted to be a family member.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005
©.®
2005-11-07 14:43:52 UTC
Permalink
so the parents owed revenue canada a shit load of money, and decided to put
the jeep in their 12 year old kids name so it would not get seized by
revenue canada ?? what a bunch of idiots...

"Alan Baggett" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.canada.com/victoria/story.html?id=e3f9cd15-879e-415e-a0ee-616e47c
79751

Taxman goes after girl, 12
Daughter becomes embroiled in dad's legal battles with Revenue Canada

Kim Westad
Times Colonist


Saturday, November 05, 2005

Imagine Abigayle Egeland-Northwood's surprise to find out that she owes
the Canada Revenue Agency $13,000.

She's never had a job, doesn't have a social insurance number and
spends most of her free time playing with her five cats and two dogs.
Oh yes, and she's 12 years old.

"I don't think it's fair because I didn't do anything wrong. I don't
work and I don't drive. I'm just a kid," the girl said in an interview
Friday.

Her parents feel she's being unfairly targeted because of her father's
dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency. Nelson Northwood maintains that
Parliament has not passed a law requiring Canadian citizens to pay
income tax, an argument he lost in court two years ago. He was ordered
to turn over records so the Canada Revenue Agency could collect some
$700,000 they say is owed.

Last week, the agency went to court again and received an order
allowing a bailiff to seize the personal property of the Grade 7
student, up to a value of $13,000.

So on Wednesday, Abbey arrived home to find bailiffs seizing the 1998
Jeep that her mother Karen Egeland transferred to her name in the
spring of 2005.

"I was mad and I was sad. I thought, "Why are they doing this to us?"
Abbey said.

Her father is more blunt.

"She has not been charged with any crime, yet they came up here and
took her private property. They're like witch hunters," Northwood said.

Karen Egeland said there is nothing unlawful about having given her
daughter the vehicle, which Egeland said was hers and not her
husband's.

While Egeland says she doesn't necessarily share her husband's views
about income tax, she says it's unfair that solely because of being a
family and living in the same home, Abbey is being drawn into the
situation and penalized.

"She is not her dad. She's a separate person and she's a child. She
just turned 12," Egeland said.

She worries what the Canada Revenue Agency will come after next of
Abbey's, and also about the long-term implications on her daughter's
name.

Because of confidentiality, Canada Revenue Agency spokesman Dan McGrath
cannot speak about a specific case.

But speaking generally, he said that a section of the Income Tax Act
deals with situations where people who owe taxes may transfer property
or money to family members, regardless of age.

The person to whom the property or money is transferred can themselves
be liable for the taxes, up to the value of the asset transferred to
them, or the asset can be seized, McGrath said.

"We're obliged to take collection action against those who try to put
their assets out of our reach," he said. "The legislation is to prevent
a person from putting assets out of our reach."

This covers transfers to any age of person who is in a "non-arm's
length" relationship, usually interpreted to be a family member.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005
Abbot
2005-11-07 14:52:57 UTC
Permalink
©.® wrote:
> so the parents owed revenue canada a shit load of money, and decided to put
> the jeep in their 12 year old kids name so it would not get seized by
> revenue canada ?? what a bunch of idiots...

Abbot) ". . .Northwood maintains that Parliament has not passed a law
requiring Canadian citizens to pay income tax, an argument he lost in
court two years ago".

Sounds like the family of another detaxer/anti-taxer paying for his
foolishness.


> "Alan Baggett" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.canada.com/victoria/story.html?id=e3f9cd15-879e-415e-a0ee-616e47c
> 79751
>
> Taxman goes after girl, 12
> Daughter becomes embroiled in dad's legal battles with Revenue Canada
>
> Kim Westad
> Times Colonist
>
>
> Saturday, November 05, 2005
>
> Imagine Abigayle Egeland-Northwood's surprise to find out that she owes
> the Canada Revenue Agency $13,000.
>
> She's never had a job, doesn't have a social insurance number and
> spends most of her free time playing with her five cats and two dogs.
> Oh yes, and she's 12 years old.
>
> "I don't think it's fair because I didn't do anything wrong. I don't
> work and I don't drive. I'm just a kid," the girl said in an interview
> Friday.
>
> Her parents feel she's being unfairly targeted because of her father's
> dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency. Nelson Northwood maintains that
> Parliament has not passed a law requiring Canadian citizens to pay
> income tax, an argument he lost in court two years ago. He was ordered
> to turn over records so the Canada Revenue Agency could collect some
> $700,000 they say is owed.
>
> Last week, the agency went to court again and received an order
> allowing a bailiff to seize the personal property of the Grade 7
> student, up to a value of $13,000.
>
> So on Wednesday, Abbey arrived home to find bailiffs seizing the 1998
> Jeep that her mother Karen Egeland transferred to her name in the
> spring of 2005.
>
> "I was mad and I was sad. I thought, "Why are they doing this to us?"
> Abbey said.
>
> Her father is more blunt.
>
> "She has not been charged with any crime, yet they came up here and
> took her private property. They're like witch hunters," Northwood said.
>
> Karen Egeland said there is nothing unlawful about having given her
> daughter the vehicle, which Egeland said was hers and not her
> husband's.
>
> While Egeland says she doesn't necessarily share her husband's views
> about income tax, she says it's unfair that solely because of being a
> family and living in the same home, Abbey is being drawn into the
> situation and penalized.
>
> "She is not her dad. She's a separate person and she's a child. She
> just turned 12," Egeland said.
>
> She worries what the Canada Revenue Agency will come after next of
> Abbey's, and also about the long-term implications on her daughter's
> name.
>
> Because of confidentiality, Canada Revenue Agency spokesman Dan McGrath
> cannot speak about a specific case.
>
> But speaking generally, he said that a section of the Income Tax Act
> deals with situations where people who owe taxes may transfer property
> or money to family members, regardless of age.
>
> The person to whom the property or money is transferred can themselves
> be liable for the taxes, up to the value of the asset transferred to
> them, or the asset can be seized, McGrath said.
>
> "We're obliged to take collection action against those who try to put
> their assets out of our reach," he said. "The legislation is to prevent
> a person from putting assets out of our reach."
>
> This covers transfers to any age of person who is in a "non-arm's
> length" relationship, usually interpreted to be a family member.
>
> © Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005
Vicegerent
2005-11-07 16:26:38 UTC
Permalink
The real problem is that Abigayle Egeland-Northwood
is a legal fiction (strawman) name attached to a human
child claimed as a plantation slave because the parents
ignorantly registered a form which became the Statement
of Birth in British Columbia under the legal identity
names attached to them by the Crown in right of their
birth provinces. The child of slaves is claimed as a
valuable (money) asset by the slave owner, the Crown
of the City of London - a wholly owned territory of the
evil Luciferian Pope of Rome.

The City of London crown has 6 points or stars representing
Lucifer - the Devil, also called Zeus or Jupiter - the false Sun.
The Roman church made their Christ (annointed or appointed
one) IESUS, meaning 'Son of Zeus' (later changed to Jesus),
the title of their former, and still secretly worshipped 'Son of
Zeus', called Mithras. The number 6 means incomplete
or false god. Creator God is philosophically presented to
the linear logic mind of mankind as the Father, Son, and
Spirit, and operating also as Father-Son, Father-Spirit,
Son-Spirit and Father-Son-Spirit. All 7 sub-sets equal
Creator God in perfection.

Don't believe that? Read 'UNAN SANCTAM' 1302:
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/unam.htm

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define
that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that
every human creature be subject to the Roman
Pontiff."

Subject to = slave of

So, agents of the Master (slave owner) decide to raid the
slave's shack, and take anything in sight as punishment
for the slave's disobedience to turn over their lives (labour
and skills) to the Master.

It is all explained in the US Congress statute of 1850,
called the Fugitive Slave Act 1850, which you can
read at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm

Pay particular attention to Section 6.

The Kentucky asshole, Jack Foster, AKA: Abbot, spouts
in defense of these evil government bastards, that the
Act was repealed in the 1860's; howver, he has offered
no proof of that. Anyway, an evil act cannot be undone -
repealed. It can only be confessed by the evil doer and
forgiven by the wronged party.

And, obviously by such acts as this post by CRA
and condoned by the BLACK ROBED scum, it is
very much still the norm in their evil schemes of
things.

Vicegerent
DaveHX
2005-11-07 17:15:58 UTC
Permalink
PLONK to another idiot

"Vicegerent" <***@mail.samhill.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
Abbot
2005-11-07 17:49:25 UTC
Permalink
> It is all explained in the US Congress statute of 1850,
> called the Fugitive Slave Act 1850, which you can
> read at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm
>
> Pay particular attention to Section 6.
>
> The Kentucky asshole, Jack Foster, AKA: Abbot, spouts
> in defense of these evil government bastards, that the
> Act was repealed in the 1860's; howver, he has offered
> no proof of that.

Abbot) Eldon, you are insane. I have documented the act's repeal in
detail.

It is a fact of law and history.

> Anyway, an evil act cannot be undone -repealed.
> It can only be confessed by the evil doer and forgiven by the wronged party.
>
> And, obviously by such acts as this post by CRA
> and condoned by the BLACK ROBED scum, it is
> very much still the norm in their evil schemes of
> things.
>
> Vicegerent
Vicegerent
2005-11-07 20:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Re:
Fugitive Slave Act 1850, which you can read at:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm

The Kentucky asshole, Jack Foster, AKA: Abbot, spouts
in defense of these evil government bastards, that the
Act was repealed in the 1860's; howver, he has offered
no proof of that. Anyway, an evil act cannot be undone -
repealed. It can only be confessed by the evil doer and
forgiven by the wronged party.

> Abbot wrote: "I have documented the act's repeal in detail.
> It is a fact of law and history.

You may have documented it, BUT, you have certaimly
NOT posted it on this NG that I have ever noticed.

And, if you have, SO WHAT?

The 1850 was passed by a proper Constitutional
Congress. Any Congress after 1861 was/is a
'de facto' rump Congress without the powers to
repeal anything passed into law by a true
Constitutional Congress.

And, the fact that this Act is still law in the
corporate UNITED STATES is adequately
shown from the recent Irwin Schiff kangaroo
court case.

So, Jack, all the readers here see is that your
Jesuit Masters have taught their 'alter boy' how
to alter truth. But, then I suppose you will say
anything as a dozen priests line up to use your
'bung hole', wouldn't you jack?

Vicegerent
Abbot
2005-11-07 21:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Vicegerent wrote:
> Re:
> Fugitive Slave Act 1850, which you can read at:
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm
>
> The Kentucky asshole, Jack Foster, AKA: Abbot, spouts
> in defense of these evil government bastards, that the
> Act was repealed in the 1860's; howver, he has offered
> no proof of that. Anyway, an evil act cannot be undone -
> repealed. It can only be confessed by the evil doer and
> forgiven by the wronged party.
>
> > Abbot wrote: "I have documented the act's repeal in detail.
> > It is a fact of law and history.
>
> You may have documented it, BUT, you have certaimly
> NOT posted it on this NG that I have ever noticed.

Abbot 2) You noticed.

http://groups.google.com/group/can.taxes/msg/04c27cb308072773

You said you couldn't find a reference to the act's repeal on the web.
When I showed you its reference there and in Elliot's Debates(286; 1)
and Benton's Debates of Congress (384,417; 1) and Title 18 Section 77
of the U.S. Code which specifically outlaws slavery you ran off the
thread.

You ran off the thread.

> And, if you have, SO WHAT?
>
> The 1850 was passed by a proper Constitutional
> Congress. Any Congress after 1861 was/is a
> 'de facto' rump Congress without the powers to
> repeal anything passed into law by a true
> Constitutional Congress.

Abbot 2) Eldon, you use a disproven internet conspiracy theory to
dismiss facts of law and history.

You can't think.

> And, the fact that this Act is still law in the
> corporate UNITED STATES is adequately
> shown from the recent Irwin Schiff kangaroo
> court case.

Abbot 2) Please cite a reference to the Fugitive Slave Act in the
Schiff decision.

> So, Jack, all the readers here see is that your
> Jesuit Masters have taught their 'alter boy' how
> to alter truth. But, then I suppose you will say
> anything as a dozen priests line up to use your
> 'bung hole', wouldn't you jack?

Abbot 2) Maybe if you weren't so fixated on homosexual acts you'd be
able to think "straight" Eldon?

> Vicegerent
Abbot
2005-11-07 22:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Vicegerent wrote:
> Re:
> Fugitive Slave Act 1850, which you can read at:
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm
>
> The Kentucky asshole, Jack Foster, AKA: Abbot, spouts
> in defense of these evil government bastards, that the
> Act was repealed in the 1860's; howver, he has offered
> no proof of that. Anyway, an evil act cannot be undone -
> repealed. It can only be confessed by the evil doer and
> forgiven by the wronged party.
>
> > Abbot wrote: "I have documented the act's repeal in detail.
> > It is a fact of law and history.
>
> You may have documented it, BUT, you have certaimly
> NOT posted it on this NG that I have ever noticed.

Abbot 2) You noticed. Got your yap shut on another thread making just
this sort of lie:

http://groups.google.com/group/can.taxes/msg/04c27cb308072773

You said you couldn't find reference to the act's repeal on the net and
when I showed you just that along with references to its repeal in
Elliot's Debates (286; 1) and Benton's Debates of Congress (384,417; 1)
and Title 18 Section 77 of the U.S. Code which specifically outlaws
slavery you ran off the thread!

You ran off the thread!

> And, if you have, SO WHAT?
>
> The 1850 was passed by a proper Constitutional
> Congress. Any Congress after 1861 was/is a
> 'de facto' rump Congress without the powers to
> repeal anything passed into law by a true
> Constitutional Congress.

Abbot 2) You use a disproven internet conspiracy theory to reject a
fact of law and history. Eldon, you can't think.

> And, the fact that this Act is still law in the
> corporate UNITED STATES is adequately
> shown from the recent Irwin Schiff kangaroo
> court case.

Abbot 2) Please cite the reference to the Fugitive Slave Act in the
Schiff decision.

> So, Jack, all the readers here see is that your
> Jesuit Masters have taught their 'alter boy' how
> to alter truth. But, then I suppose you will say
> anything as a dozen priests line up to use your
> 'bung hole', wouldn't you jack?

Abbot 2) Maybe if you weren't so fixated on homosexual acts you'd be
able to think "straight", Eldon.

> Vicegerent
Vicegerent
2005-11-08 00:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Abbot 2) Please cite the reference to the Fugitive Slave
Act in the Schiff decision.

Section 6
Exerpt:
"In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony
of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; "

Your quotes:

For documentation of the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act look first
at:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0819828.html

then:

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Lalor/llCy489.html

If you had cared to brave leaving your house and drive momma's
Lincoln down to the law library you'd find documentation of the
law's repeal at several sources:

COMPROMISES V., VI.: SLAVERY; REPUBLICAN PARTY; ABOLITION III.
SECESSION.)-(I.) See 4 Elliot's Debates, 286; 1 Benton's Debates of
Congress, 384,417; 1 von Holst's United States,310; Prigg vs.
Pennsylvania, 16 Pet., 539; 6 Benton's Debates of Congress, 43, 107,
177; the act of Feb.12, 1793, is in 1 Stat. at Large, 302. (II.) See 16
Benton's Debates of Congress, 593; 2 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 773;
5 Stryker's American Register,547, 550; Buchanan's Administration, 16;
Tyler's Life of Taney, 282, 392; Ableman vs. Booth, 21 How., 506; 2
Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave power, 391-337, 435; Schuckers'
Life of Chase, 123, 171; 2 Webster's Works, 558, and 5:354; Moses
Stuart's Conscience and the Constitution; Still's Underground Rail
road, 348; Steven's History of Anthony Burns; 1 Greeley's American
Conflict, 210; 2 A. H. Stephens' War Between the States, 674 (in the
Declaration of South Carolina); Hamilton's Memoir of Rantoul, 729;
authorities under articles above referred to; the fugitive slave law is
in 9 Stat. at Large, 462: the act of June 28, 1864, is in 13 Stat. at
Large (38th Cong.),4

----------------------------

Lest you opine that this isn't enough documentation for you I suggest
you read Title 18 Section 77 of the U.S. Code which specifically
outlaws the slavery you claim is still in place based upon a long ago
repealed law.

The dates are AFTER Lincoln put Congress UNDER the Executive
branch as a subservient branch of government. Such a 'de facto'
system cannot lawfully repeal a Constitutionally enacted piece of
legislation, such as the Fugitive Slave Act.

Title 18 Section 77 may outlaw slavery of men, but it does not
outlaw slavery of legal identities/persons. And, it obviously
does not, because the imposition of income tax is a direct act
against the extraction of labour from a slave.

Vicegerent
Abbot
2005-11-08 14:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Vicegerent wrote:
> Abbot 2) Please cite the reference to the Fugitive Slave
> Act in the Schiff decision.
>
> Section 6
> Exerpt:
> "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony
> of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; "

Abbot 3) That's pointless and insane drivel. In the countless cases I
have posted documenting the failures of detaxers and anti-taxers the
court clearly heard the arguments of detaxers.

It seems the pychotic Eldon has confused "hearing" with "validating".

> Your quotes:
>
> For documentation of the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act look first
> at:
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0819828.html
>
> then:
>
> http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Lalor/llCy489.html
>
> If you had cared to brave leaving your house and drive momma's
> Lincoln down to the law library you'd find documentation of the
> law's repeal at several sources:
>
> COMPROMISES V., VI.: SLAVERY; REPUBLICAN PARTY; ABOLITION III.
> SECESSION.)-(I.) See 4 Elliot's Debates, 286; 1 Benton's Debates of
> Congress, 384,417; 1 von Holst's United States,310; Prigg vs.
> Pennsylvania, 16 Pet., 539; 6 Benton's Debates of Congress, 43, 107,
> 177; the act of Feb.12, 1793, is in 1 Stat. at Large, 302. (II.) See 16
> Benton's Debates of Congress, 593; 2 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 773;
> 5 Stryker's American Register,547, 550; Buchanan's Administration, 16;
> Tyler's Life of Taney, 282, 392; Ableman vs. Booth, 21 How., 506; 2
> Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave power, 391-337, 435; Schuckers'
> Life of Chase, 123, 171; 2 Webster's Works, 558, and 5:354; Moses
> Stuart's Conscience and the Constitution; Still's Underground Rail
> road, 348; Steven's History of Anthony Burns; 1 Greeley's American
> Conflict, 210; 2 A. H. Stephens' War Between the States, 674 (in the
> Declaration of South Carolina); Hamilton's Memoir of Rantoul, 729;
> authorities under articles above referred to; the fugitive slave law is
> in 9 Stat. at Large, 462: the act of June 28, 1864, is in 13 Stat. at
> Large (38th Cong.),4
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Lest you opine that this isn't enough documentation for you I suggest
> you read Title 18 Section 77 of the U.S. Code which specifically
> outlaws the slavery you claim is still in place based upon a long ago
> repealed law.
>
> The dates are AFTER Lincoln put Congress UNDER the Executive
> branch as a subservient branch of government. Such a 'de facto'
> system cannot lawfully repeal a Constitutionally enacted piece of
> legislation, such as the Fugitive Slave Act.

Abbot 3) You have yet another fact of history wrong, Eldon.I suppose
you will now post something you have cut from somebody else's web site.


One may argue that Lincoln took too much license in the early stages of
the war, but the fact is the separation of powers between Congress and
the executive branch was not erased during the civil war.

Or did we forget that Congress impeached Lincoln's successor?

> Title 18 Section 77 may outlaw slavery of men, but it does not
> outlaw slavery of legal identities/persons. And, it obviously
> does not, .

Abbot 3) Eldon, that's just more of your insane word parsing.

Any sane individual can read Title 18 and see that it outlaws slavery.
As does the 13th amendment.

> because the imposition of income tax is a direct act against the extraction of labour
> from a slave

Abbot 3) Taxes are taxes, slavery is slavery.

> Vicegerent
Stephen Jenuth
2005-11-08 14:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Vicegerent wrote:

> Abbot 2) Please cite the reference to the Fugitive Slave
> Act in the Schiff decision.
>
> Section 6
> Exerpt:
> "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony
> of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; "
>

The case of R. v. Warman, [2000] B.C.J. No. 2199 proves your theory wrong
pretty conclusively. There Warman, the guru of the detax movement,
testified in the case and was convicted after a trial.

Now, if the fugitive slave act applied to him, he wouldn't have been able to
testify and his evidence would not have been admitted. However, it was.

And if any of the detax theories any credence, he would have been acquitted.
But he wasn't.

Instead, he was personally just Eldon Warman, a flesh and blood human being,
who like anyone else was required to obey the law and a peace officer when
the told him to show his driver's licence.

Saying he was a "sovereign natural citizen of the Anglo-Saxon common law"
did not help him.

He was just Eldon Warman, a person like any other. He was convicted of
assaulting the peace officer just like anyone else would have been. He was
summoned to Court, and when he failed to appear a warrant was issued for
his arrest. The warrant was transferred to Alberta, and a justice there
validated it and Warman was arrested. See Warman (Re)[2000] A.J. No. 1401

Sadly, his attitude caused him to be held in custody until his trial. Given
the time in custody, I understand he was sentenced to time served on the
offence. And it was Eldon, flesh and blood human being that spent time in
prison, not some mythical legal identity.

Perhaps you could tell all of us where Eldon went wrong? What did he do
wrong that resulted in this event in his life? Why didn't you help him?

--
Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(***@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net
Carter
2005-11-07 17:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Abbot wrote:
> ©.® wrote:
>
>>so the parents owed revenue canada a shit load of money, and decided to put
>>the jeep in their 12 year old kids name so it would not get seized by
>>revenue canada ?? what a bunch of idiots...
>
>
> Abbot) ". . .Northwood maintains that Parliament has not passed a law
> requiring Canadian citizens to pay income tax, an argument he lost in
> court two years ago".

....but....but....but...just ask Alan Baggett, he will tell you
there is no such law.
>
> Sounds like the family of another detaxer/anti-taxer paying for his
> foolishness.

Absolutely.

Carter
Alan Baggett
2005-11-08 04:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Carter wrote:
> Abbot wrote:
> > ©.® wrote:
> >
> >>so the parents owed revenue canada a shit load of money, and decided to put
> >>the jeep in their 12 year old kids name so it would not get seized by
> >>revenue canada ?? what a bunch of idiots...
> >
> >
> > Abbot) ". . .Northwood maintains that Parliament has not passed a law
> > requiring Canadian citizens to pay income tax, an argument he lost in
> > court two years ago".
>
> ....but....but....but...just ask Alan Baggett, he will tell you
> there is no such law.

Again Carter Lee proves that he is a person who never tires of fibbing.
Or, in short, Carter Lee is a liar.

Why?

Because such a thing was never said/wrote.

Let's keep this simple Carter, AGAIN, for the record, using the ITA
please denote the section/subsection/paragraph/subparagraph/clause that
specifically punishes for non-payment (jail time / fines / penalties)
WHEN they have filed their tax return honestly.

Shouldn't be that hard now should it.

Unless of course good ole boy Carter Lee is a liar.









> > Sounds like the family of another detaxer/anti-taxer paying for his
> > foolishness.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Carter
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-08 09:13:05 UTC
Permalink
"Abbot" <***@emailaccount.com> wrote:
"> Abbot) ". . .Northwood maintains that Parliament has not passed a law
"> requiring Canadian citizens to pay income tax, an argument he lost in
"> court two years ago".

It's funny how the Supreme Court consistently misquotes the Constitution Act to
defend C.R.A.'s theft of hardworking Canadians' money!

Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is not
available to the federal level of government.

The courts keep claiming Section 92(1) as justification for the feds taxing
anyway, when 92(1) says the "the federal parliament can raise money by any
means it desires, WHICH DO NOT CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS
ACT"(emphasis added)

The courts leave out quoting the second, qualifying, part of 92(1) which
clearly negates the court's quote of the first half (as 92(2) is another part
of "this Act")


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Fred
2005-11-08 22:57:59 UTC
Permalink
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
> "Abbot" <***@emailaccount.com> wrote:
> "> Abbot) ". . .Northwood maintains that Parliament has not passed a law
> "> requiring Canadian citizens to pay income tax, an argument he lost in
> "> court two years ago".
>
> It's funny how the Supreme Court consistently misquotes the Constitution Act to
> defend C.R.A.'s theft of hardworking Canadians' money!
>
> Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is not
> available to the federal level of government.

No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation; that is not what it says.

> The courts keep claiming Section 92(1) as justification for the feds taxing
> anyway, when 92(1) says the "the federal parliament can raise money by any
> means it desires, WHICH DO NOT CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS
> ACT"(emphasis added)

You are making this up. That is not what it says.

> The courts leave out quoting the second, qualifying, part of 92(1) which
> clearly negates the court's quote of the first half (as 92(2) is another part
> of "this Act")

That is not what it says.

Here is what it says:

As to the Federal government:

"91. ... the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada
extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next
hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

"3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation."

As to the Provincial governments:

"92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next
hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

"2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a
Revenue for Provincial Purposes."

See http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html

Yes, I know that it can be confusing if one does not read carefully,
much less comprehend, but it's all there, and it all sorts out quite
nicely. And none of it supports your thesis.
Karl Pollak
2005-11-09 06:45:34 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
>> Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is not
>> available to the federal level of government.
>
>No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation; that is not what it says.

The guy is an idiot.
THERE IS NO SECTION 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867.

The Constitution Act 1867 has sections 92 and 92A. Section 92A does have
subsection (2) but that concerns natural resources.

In any case, Section 92 provides for PROVINCIAL jurisdictions and says
nothing about the feds. It is section 91 that defines the powers of the
federal parliament, and classes of matters in which it may legislate.
Class 3. says clearly "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of
Taxation."

Please note the powerful word "ANY"

>> The courts keep claiming Section 92(1) as justification for the feds taxing
>> anyway, when 92(1) says the "the federal parliament can raise money by any
>> means it desires, WHICH DO NOT CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS
>> ACT"(emphasis added)
>
>You are making this up. That is not what it says.

There is also not section 92 (1).

>Yes, I know that it can be confusing if one does not read carefully,
>much less comprehend, but it's all there, and it all sorts out quite
>nicely. And none of it supports your thesis.

No, you got it all wrong, Fred. George is a constitutional and taxation
expert and the biggest mistake the Justices of the Supreme Court made was
not to ask him and the other moron that keeps spamming the newsgroup with
his tax department garbage how they should be reading the stuff.

--
Greetings from Lotusland
Fred
2005-11-09 23:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Karl Pollak wrote:

> Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
>>
>>>Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is not
>>>available to the federal level of government.
>>
>>No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation; that is not what it says.
>
>
> The guy is an idiot.
> THERE IS NO SECTION 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867.

Sure there is. I quoted it in my original. You *conveniently* edited
that out.

Here it is again:

"92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next
hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

"2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a
Revenue for Provincial Purposes. "

See http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html

[...]

>>Yes, I know that it can be confusing if one does not read carefully,
>>much less comprehend, but it's all there, and it all sorts out quite
>>nicely. And none of it supports your thesis.
>
>
> No, you got it all wrong, Fred.

Take your sarcasm and stick it somewhere. You're both wrong. If y'all
can't be bothered to actually *read* the material in question, both of
you can put a cork in it.
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-10 14:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
F> Karl Pollak wrote:
F>
F> > Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
F> >
F> >
F> >>***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
F> >>
F> >>>Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is not
F> >>>available to the federal level of government.
F> >>
F> >>No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation; that is not what it says.
F> >
F> >
F> > The guy is an idiot.
F> > THERE IS NO SECTION 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867.
F>
F> Sure there is. I quoted it in my original. You *conveniently* edited
F> that out.
F>
F> Here it is again:
F>
F> "92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
F> relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next
F> hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--
F>
F> "2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a
F> Revenue for Provincial Purposes. "

Karl, do note the "...may exclusively..." clause to 92(2)!
(and 92(2) is in BOTH the BNA(1867) AND was adopted unchanged into the
Constitution Act (1982)

Now please point out how 93(1) does not contravene this section of the Act! (as
in the feds may raise money by any means "EXCEPT THAT WHICH CONTRAVENES ANY
OTHER SECTION..."!


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Karl Pollak
2005-11-11 05:10:48 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> The guy is an idiot.
>> THERE IS NO SECTION 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867.
>
>Sure there is. I quoted it in my original. You *conveniently* edited
>that out.
>
>Here it is again:
>
>"92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
>relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next
>hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--
>
>"2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a
>Revenue for Provincial Purposes. "
>

>Take your sarcasm and stick it somewhere. You're both wrong. If y'all
>can't be bothered to actually *read* the material in question, both of
>you can put a cork in it.

Sorry sunshine, but you can read whatever you like, it doesn't mean that
you understand what it in front of your nose.

Here is the original section 92 in all its glory:

(Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation)
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next
hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
1. The Amendment from Time to Time, notwithstanding anything
in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as
regards the Office of Lieutenant Governor.
2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising
of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
3. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
4. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the
appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to
the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
6. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public
and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of
Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary
Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine
Hospitals.
8. Municipal Institutions in the Provinces.
9. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in
order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local,
or Municipal Purposes.
10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the
following Classes:-
(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals,
Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting
the Province with any other or others of the Provinces,
or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any
British or Foreign Country:
(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the
Province, are before or after their Execution declared
by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general
Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more
of the Provinces.
11. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
---
Class 1 was repealed by the Constitution Act, 1982.

Get it, moron? It is a CLASS OF SUBJECTS of provincial jurisdiction, NOT A
SUBSECTION. Have somebody explain to you what "Classes of Subjects next
hereinafter enumerated" means before you start parading your ignorance
again.

Learn to read or ask your public school to return your tuition.


--
Greetings from Lotusland
Fred
2005-11-11 22:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Karl Pollak wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>The guy is an idiot.
>>>THERE IS NO SECTION 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867.
>>
>>Sure there is. I quoted it in my original. You *conveniently* edited
>>that out.
>>
>>Here it is again:
>>
>>"92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
>>relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next
>>hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--
>>
>>"2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a
>>Revenue for Provincial Purposes. "
>>
>
>
>>Take your sarcasm and stick it somewhere. You're both wrong. If y'all
>>can't be bothered to actually *read* the material in question, both of
>>you can put a cork in it.
>
>
> Sorry sunshine ...

Ah, the ad hominem attack, the last refuge of he who has lost the
argument on the merits and has nothing of value to offer.

That being the case, this discussion is over.
Karl Pollak
2005-11-13 08:03:13 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> Sorry sunshine ...
>
>Ah, the ad hominem attack, the last refuge of he who has lost the
>argument on the merits and has nothing of value to offer.
>
>That being the case, this discussion is over.

English translation: You realize that you posted ignorant bullshit.

--
Greetings from Lotusland
s***@nosuchaddress.ca
2005-11-24 06:09:29 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 05:10:48 GMT, ***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak)
wrote:

hmmm, who exactly made up these classes Karl??


>
>>Take your sarcasm and stick it somewhere. You're both wrong. If y'all
>>can't be bothered to actually *read* the material in question, both of
>>you can put a cork in it.
>
>Sorry sunshine, but you can read whatever you like, it doesn't mean that
>you understand what it in front of your nose.
>
>Here is the original section 92 in all its glory:
>
>(Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation)
>92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
>relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next
>hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
> 1. The Amendment from Time to Time, notwithstanding anything
> in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as
> regards the Office of Lieutenant Governor.
> 2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising
> of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
> 3. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
> 4. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the
> appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
> 5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to
> the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
> 6. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public
> and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
> 7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of
> Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary
> Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine
> Hospitals.
> 8. Municipal Institutions in the Provinces.
> 9. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in
> order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local,
> or Municipal Purposes.
> 10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the
> following Classes:-
> (a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals,
> Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting
> the Province with any other or others of the Provinces,
> or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
> (b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any
> British or Foreign Country:
> (c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the
> Province, are before or after their Execution declared
> by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general
> Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more
> of the Provinces.
> 11. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
> 12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
> 13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
>---
>Class 1 was repealed by the Constitution Act, 1982.
>
>Get it, moron? It is a CLASS OF SUBJECTS of provincial jurisdiction, NOT A
>SUBSECTION. Have somebody explain to you what "Classes of Subjects next
>hereinafter enumerated" means before you start parading your ignorance
>again.
>
>Learn to read or ask your public school to return your tuition.
Karl Pollak
2005-11-25 00:44:47 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
***@nosuchaddress.ca wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 05:10:48 GMT, ***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak)
>wrote:
>
>hmmm, who exactly made up these classes Karl??

The same people who wrote the BNA Act of 1867. I believe they are
collectively referred to as The Fathers of Confederation (except for Joey
Smallwood of course)

The representatives of the 4 provinces had several conferences on the
subject of the constitution, the terms of their Union and the division of
jusridictions between the central government and the provincial
governments.

Anyone who wants to believe that there is or could be a level of government
without the powers of taxation is simply put an idiot.

--
Greetings from Lotusland
Anonymous User
2005-11-25 04:12:45 UTC
Permalink
You're not seriously claiming that those guys aren't the smartest people in
this group are you? :)



"Karl Pollak" <***@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:***@news.pacificcoast.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> ***@nosuchaddress.ca wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 05:10:48 GMT, ***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak)
>>wrote:
>>
>>hmmm, who exactly made up these classes Karl??
>
> The same people who wrote the BNA Act of 1867. I believe they are
> collectively referred to as The Fathers of Confederation (except for Joey
> Smallwood of course)
>
> The representatives of the 4 provinces had several conferences on the
> subject of the constitution, the terms of their Union and the division of
> jusridictions between the central government and the provincial
> governments.
>
> Anyone who wants to believe that there is or could be a level of
> government
> without the powers of taxation is simply put an idiot.
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
s***@nosuchaddress.ca
2005-11-25 05:38:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:44:47 GMT, ***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak)
wrote:


>
>Anyone who wants to believe that there is or could be a level of government
>without the powers of taxation is simply put an idiot.

Thanks for the information. I tend to think that maybe those that do
not believe re: that all levels of government can tax the people do
not tend to think of user fees, recycling fees, and all the other
costs that were once free as a tax but I do. They are all just words
but they all boil down to one thing...if you have to pay it then it is
a form of tax.
Stephen Jenuth
2005-11-25 14:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Karl Pollak wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
> ***@nosuchaddress.ca wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 05:10:48 GMT, ***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak)
>>wrote:
>>
>>hmmm, who exactly made up these classes Karl??
>

There were three conferences which lead to these classes and the rest of
what is now called the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North
America Act, 1867): The Charlottetown Conference (1864), the Quebec
Conference (1864), and the London Conference (1866). The resolutions from
the London conference are found at
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/Misc/lr_1866.html

These were taken and made into the BNA Act, 1867 which was passed shortly
after the resolutions were passed by Canadian delegates.

--
Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(***@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-10 06:48:20 UTC
Permalink
***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> >***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
> >> Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is not
> >> available to the federal level of government.
> >
> >No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation; that is not what it says.
>
> The guy is an idiot.
> THERE IS NO SECTION 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867.
>
> The Constitution Act 1867 has sections 92 and 92A. Section 92A does have
> subsection (2) but that concerns natural resources.

YOU are the obvious idiot -- did I fucking SAY "BNA Act 1867"? NO!!! I said,
"Constitution Act"!

92(2) says that direct taxation is the EXCLUSIVE domain of the provincial
legislatures. (this rules out the federal -- feel free to use the ENGLISH
dictionary of your choice to look up "exclusive"!)

> In any case, Section 92 provides for PROVINCIAL jurisdictions and says
> nothing about the feds. It is section 91 that defines the powers of the
> federal parliament, and classes of matters in which it may legislate.
> Class 3. says clearly "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of
> Taxation."
>
> Please note the powerful word "ANY"

Did you skip reading EVERYTHING that you conveniently omitted to quote?
It says "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation THAT DOES NOT
CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS ACT"(note the powerful word "ANY" then
note that 92(2) is in "this Act"!)

Oh, and FTR, I pay my (illegally-claimed)taxes every year, like any good
citizen.



--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Fred
2005-11-10 13:38:58 UTC
Permalink
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
> ***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
>
>>>***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
>>>
>>>>Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is not
>>>>available to the federal level of government.
>>>
>>>No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation; that is not what it says.
>>
>>The guy is an idiot.
>>THERE IS NO SECTION 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867.
>>
>>The Constitution Act 1867 has sections 92 and 92A. Section 92A does have
>>subsection (2) but that concerns natural resources.
>
>
> YOU are the obvious idiot -- did I fucking SAY "BNA Act 1867"? NO!!! I said,
> "Constitution Act"!


Same thing. The name was changed in 1982.

See http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

> 92(2) says that direct taxation is the EXCLUSIVE domain of the provincial
> legislatures. (this rules out the federal -- feel free to use the ENGLISH
> dictionary of your choice to look up "exclusive"!)

That is not what it says. That is your private simplistic
*interpretation* of what it says, which you apparently derive by
ignoring the qualifiers in that section.

This is what it actually says:

"92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next
hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

"2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a
Revenue for Provincial Purposes. "

Note carefully the qualifiers "within the Province" and "for provincial
purposes."

Thus, the Federal government may not directly tax within a Province for
Provincial purposes. That is the only limitation to the Federal power of
taxation that 92(2) imposes.

>>In any case, Section 92 provides for PROVINCIAL jurisdictions and says
>>nothing about the feds. It is section 91 that defines the powers of the
>>federal parliament, and classes of matters in which it may legislate.
>>Class 3. says clearly "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of
>>Taxation."
>>
>>Please note the powerful word "ANY"
>
>
> Did you skip reading EVERYTHING that you conveniently omitted to quote?
> It says "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation THAT DOES NOT
> CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS ACT"(note the powerful word "ANY" then
> note that 92(2) is in "this Act"!)

Your quote is factually false. And I do think that it is intentionally so.

Or, to put it another way, your alleged quote is a lie.
Karl Pollak
2005-11-11 05:10:47 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:

>YOU are the obvious idiot -- did I fucking SAY "BNA Act 1867"? NO!!! I said,
>"Constitution Act"!

George, when you learn the difference between the BNA Act 1867 and CA 1867,
come back and talk to me again. Until then, please fuck off and die.

FYI:
The number 2 in section 92 refers to CLASS of matters and NOT a subsection.

I repeat: There is no section 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867 or the
Constitution Act 1867.


--
Greetings from Lotusland
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-10 21:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
F> > YOU are the obvious idiot -- did I fucking SAY "BNA Act 1867"? NO!!! I
F> > "Constitution Act"!
F>
F>
F> Same thing. The name was changed in 1982.

With some changes; only the Constitution Act(1982) is in itself binding.

Karl has apparent schizophrenia -- he ranked out previously in this group about
claiming the BNA(1967) as being the Constitution, on this same topic(taxation),
yet!


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-11 21:14:27 UTC
Permalink
What the FUCK are you going on about?

I specifically said Constitution Act (1982) -- do you even realize this country
has evolved since 1867?

Until you have, why don't YOU FOAD and give Usenet a much-deserved rest from
your tripe!


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes


***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> ***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
>
> >YOU are the obvious idiot -- did I fucking SAY "BNA Act 1867"? NO!!! I s
> >"Constitution Act"!
>
> George, when you learn the difference between the BNA Act 1867 and CA 1867
> come back and talk to me again. Until then, please fuck off and die.
>
> FYI:
> The number 2 in section 92 refers to CLASS of matters and NOT a subsection
>
> I repeat: There is no section 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867 or the
> Constitution Act 1867.
>
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Karl Pollak
2005-11-12 18:57:40 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:

>What the FUCK are you going on about?

Nothing that you would understand.

>I specifically said Constitution Act (1982) -- do you even realize this country
>has evolved since 1867?

You have not answered the question: What's the diff between the BNA Act
1867 and Constitution Act 1867? Or for that matter the schedule to the
Constitution Act 1982?

>Until you have, why don't YOU FOAD and give Usenet a much-deserved rest from
>your tripe!

OK George, you obviously will not get smart and go away, so here it is:
Tell us how was section 92 changed by the enactment of the Constitution Act
1982?

Go ahead, make an ass of yourself.

[Here's a little hint: I have already told you how it was changed.]

--
Greetings from Lotusland
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-13 15:42:19 UTC
Permalink
***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> >I specifically said Constitution Act (1982) -- do you even realize this c
> >has evolved since 1867?
>
> You have not answered the question: What's the diff between the BNA Act
> 1867 and Constitution Act 1867? Or for that matter the schedule to the
> Constitution Act 1982?
>
> >Until you have, why don't YOU FOAD and give Usenet a much-deserved rest
> >your tripe!
>
> OK George, you obviously will not get smart and go away, so here it is:
> Tell us how was section 92 changed by the enactment of the Constitution Ac
> 1982?
>
> Go ahead, make an ass of yourself.
>
> [Here's a little hint: I have already told you how it was changed.]

Here's a hint right back to you -- I already pointed out that I've DONE the
research for myself (I'll believe my own reading of the official published
edition of the Constitution Act(1982) over your meandering insinuations of what
is or is not in there!

And, yes, I know that Section 92 was adopted unchanged from the BNA(1867) -- as
I pointed out in here a couple years ago, after you spazzed at my citing the
BNA!

You may like to block Google from archiving your contradictions & lies, but you
can't block personal memories!


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Karl Pollak
2005-11-14 06:11:06 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:


>Here's a hint right back to you -- I already pointed out that I've DONE the
>research for myself (I'll believe my own reading of the official published
>edition of the Constitution Act(1982) over your meandering insinuations of what
>is or is not in there!

Obviously you havce not. Otherwise you would know that the Constitution
Act 1867 is simply the BNA Act 1867 renamed by the Canada Act 1982

>And, yes, I know that Section 92 was adopted unchanged from the BNA(1867) -- as
>I pointed out in here a couple years ago, after you spazzed at my citing the
>BNA!

Actually it wasn't and I have already told you that. Class 1 in section 92
was repealed in 1982.

>You may like to block Google from archiving your contradictions & lies, but you
>can't block personal memories!

Give it up George, you are not even in the same ballpark.

--
Greetings from Lotusland
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-13 15:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Did you miss this one just before you replied to mine, denying the
below-quoted text from Constitution Act(1982) (and/or BNA(1867))


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes


Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
F> Karl Pollak wrote:
F> > x-no-archive: yes
F> > Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
F> >
F> >
F> >
F> >>>The guy is an idiot.
F> >>>THERE IS NO SECTION 92(2) in the BNA Act 1867.
F> >>
F> >>Sure there is. I quoted it in my original. You *conveniently* edited
F> >>that out.
F> >>
F> >>Here it is again:
F> >>
F> >>"92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
F> >>relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next
F> >>hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--
F> >>
F> >>"2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a
F> >>Revenue for Provincial Purposes. "
F> >>
F> >
F> >
F> >>Take your sarcasm and stick it somewhere. You're both wrong. If y'all
F> >>can't be bothered to actually *read* the material in question, both of
F> >>you can put a cork in it.
F> >
F> >
F> > Sorry sunshine ...
F>
F> Ah, the ad hominem attack, the last refuge of he who has lost the
F> argument on the merits and has nothing of value to offer.
F>
F> That being the case, this discussion is over.
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-14 17:52:36 UTC
Permalink
***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> >Here's a hint right back to you -- I already pointed out that I've DONE t
> >research for myself (I'll believe my own reading of the official publishe
> >edition of the Constitution Act(1982) over your meandering insinuations o
> >is or is not in there!
>
> Obviously you havce not. Otherwise you would know that the Constitution
> Act 1867 is simply the BNA Act 1867 renamed by the Canada Act 1982

Apparently you've not read the list of changes that were made?

> >And, yes, I know that Section 92 was adopted unchanged from the BNA(1867)
> >I pointed out in here a couple years ago, after you spazzed at my citing
> >BNA!
>
> Actually it wasn't and I have already told you that. Class 1 in section 9
> was repealed in 1982.

Pardon me, that should've been Section 92(2) was adopted unchanged from the
BNA91867)


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Vicegerent
2005-11-15 02:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Point is, that the BNA Act and the Constitution Act of 1982
doesn't mean squat diddley to a free will man living on the
landmass commonly called Canada.

Acts of government ONLY are applicable to corporate members
of the organization writing the 'ship's orders' (constitutions).

And, as government is a 'legal fiction', so too are the 'members'
over which the ship's administration rules.

Relative to taxation, it is only applicable to members/personel/
persons - any of these terms meaning a fiction or or a man in a
fictitious role of 'plantation slave'.

And, if you are ignorant enough, or stupid enough to tell a CRA
agent or judge that your name is the name on the birth certificate,
you are assumed to be a plantation slave.

So, why bother your pointy heads over the interpretation of
Section 92?

Vicegerent
Karl Pollak
2005-11-15 14:07:32 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:

>Pardon me, that should've been Section 92(2) was adopted unchanged from the
>BNA91867)

No, I will not. Your pigheaded stupidity is inexcusable.

How many time do you need to be told that there are no subsections in
section 92? Consequently, there is no such thing as sec. 92(2) in the
CA1867.


--
Greetings from Lotusland
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-16 04:16:42 UTC
Permalink
HOLY FUCK YOU'RE AN IGNORANT ASS!!!

I've read it as such in the officially published version, and I've seen it
cited in Supreme Court decisions!

What are YOU blathering about?

I've told you before -- I'll always take the evidence of my own eyes over some
Usenutter's drivel!


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes


***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> ***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
>
> >Pardon me, that should've been Section 92(2) was adopted unchanged from t
> >BNA91867)
>
> No, I will not. Your pigheaded stupidity is inexcusable.
>
> How many time do you need to be told that there are no subsections in
> section 92? Consequently, there is no such thing as sec. 92(2) in the
> CA1867.
>
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-16 04:23:30 UTC
Permalink
HOLY FUCK YOU'RE AN IGNORANT ASS!!!

I've read it as such in the officially published version, and I've seen it
cited in Supreme Court decisions!

What are YOU blathering about?

I've told you before -- I'll always take the evidence of my own eyes over some
Usenutter's drivel!


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes


***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> ***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
>
> >Pardon me, that should've been Section 92(2) was adopted unchanged from t
> >BNA91867)
>
> No, I will not. Your pigheaded stupidity is inexcusable.
>
> How many time do you need to be told that there are no subsections in
> section 92? Consequently, there is no such thing as sec. 92(2) in the
> CA1867.
>
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-27 02:15:41 UTC
Permalink
***@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> The representatives of the 4 provinces had several conferences on the
> subject of the constitution, the terms of their Union and the division of
> jusridictions between the central government and the provincial
> governments.
>
> Anyone who wants to believe that there is or could be a level of governmen
> without the powers of taxation is simply put an idiot.

Canada's law don't give a shit what the fathers of confederation INTENDED or
THOUGHT -- only what is actually written down and encsconced in our
Constitution!


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Karl Pollak
2005-11-28 00:39:30 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:

>> Anyone who wants to believe that there is or could be a level of governmen
>> without the powers of taxation is simply put an idiot.

>Canada's law don't give a shit what the fathers of confederation INTENDED or
>THOUGHT -- only what is actually written down and encsconced in our
>Constitution!

Then I would suggest to you to go back to school to learn to read.
Why do you insist on parading your ignorance over and over and again,
George?

You have alerady been told several times that the numbered items in Section
92 (and 91 for that matter) of the Constitution Act 1867 are CLASSES of
jurisdictions, and not subsections. Yet you persist to argue over it with
absolutely no foundation to your claim.

Why keep on making an ass of yourself in public? Have you not done that
often enough here as it is?

Never mind that your interpretation to suggest that the federal government
has no powers to impose any tax and particularly not income tax has been
refuted by the Supreme Court, but for some strange reason, you think that
you can read the constitution better than the 9 Justices of the Supreme
Court?


--
Greetings from Lotusland
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-09 16:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
F> > Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is not
F> > available to the federal level of government.
F>
F> No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation; that is not what it says.

Quite clearly, actually.

F> > The courts keep claiming Section 92(1) as justification for the feds tax
F> > anyway, when 92(1) says the "the federal parliament can raise money by a
F> > means it desires, WHICH DO NOT CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS
F> > ACT"(emphasis added)
F>
F> You are making this up. That is not what it says.

I mis-cited, it's 93(1) and it is exactly what it says!


why are you replying with kneejerk denial when you obviously haven't even read
the sections in question?


F> Here is what it says:

That's not what I've read for myself in the official publshed version.

And I've also researched the Supreme Court rulings on these points, to boot.

You see, I've done more than just surf the WWW for out of context points!


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Fred
2005-11-10 00:09:02 UTC
Permalink
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
> Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> F> > Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is not
> F> > available to the federal level of government.
> F>
> F> No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation; that is not what it says.
>
> Quite clearly, actually.

I quoted what it says. You *conveniently* edited that out.

Here, again, is what it says:

"92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next
hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

"2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a
Revenue for Provincial Purposes. "

That's a direct quote.

Now demonstrate how that prevents the Federal level of government from
exercising its powers under Section 91, which, I remind you, are:

"91. ... the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada
extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next
hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

"3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation. "

Again, a direct quote.

See http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html

Unlike you, I am not making this up.

> F> > The courts keep claiming Section 92(1) as justification for the feds tax
> F> > anyway, when 92(1) says the "the federal parliament can raise money by a
> F> > means it desires, WHICH DO NOT CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS
> F> > ACT"(emphasis added)
> F>
> F> You are making this up. That is not what it says.
>
> I mis-cited, it's 93(1) and it is exactly what it says!

Now I know for sure that you are making this all up, because if you had
bothered to actually *read* your own constitution, you would know that
Section 93(1) says:

"93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws
in relation to Education, subject and according to the following
Provisions:--

"(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or
Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of
Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union: "

> why are you replying with kneejerk denial when you obviously haven't even read
> the sections in question?

I have quoted the sections in question. You quote nothing.

You're making it all up.
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-10 14:50:34 UTC
Permalink
The key clause is "may exclusively make laws in relation to matters...raising
of revenue"


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes


Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
F> ***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
F> > Fred <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
F> > F> > Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act says that direct taxation is
F> > F> > available to the federal level of government.
F> > F>
F> > F> No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation; that is not what it says.
F> >
F> > Quite clearly, actually.
F>
F> I quoted what it says. You *conveniently* edited that out.
F>
F> Here, again, is what it says:
F>
F> "92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
F> relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next
F> hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--
F>
F> "2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a
F> Revenue for Provincial Purposes. "
F>
F> That's a direct quote.
F>
F> Now demonstrate how that prevents the Federal level of government from
F> exercising its powers under Section 91, which, I remind you, are:
F>
F> "91. ... the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada
F> extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next
F> hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--
F>
F> "3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation. "
F>
F> Again, a direct quote.
F>
F> See http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html
F>
F> Unlike you, I am not making this up.
F>
F> > F> > The courts keep claiming Section 92(1) as justification for the fed
F> > F> > anyway, when 92(1) says the "the federal parliament can raise money
F> > F> > means it desires, WHICH DO NOT CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS
F> > F> > ACT"(emphasis added)
F> > F>
F> > F> You are making this up. That is not what it says.
F> >
F> > I mis-cited, it's 93(1) and it is exactly what it says!
F>
F> Now I know for sure that you are making this all up, because if you had
F> bothered to actually *read* your own constitution, you would know that
F> Section 93(1) says:
F>
F> "93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws
F> in relation to Education, subject and according to the following
F> Provisions:--
F>
F> "(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or
F> Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of
F> Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union: "
F>
F> > why are you replying with kneejerk denial when you obviously haven't eve
F> > the sections in question?
F>
F> I have quoted the sections in question. You quote nothing.
F>
F> You're making it all up.
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Karl Pollak
2005-11-09 06:45:33 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote:

>The courts keep claiming Section 92(1) as justification for the feds taxing
>anyway, when 92(1) says the "the federal parliament can raise money by any
>means it desires, WHICH DO NOT CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS
>ACT"(emphasis added)
>
>The courts leave out quoting the second, qualifying, part of 92(1) which
>clearly negates the court's quote of the first half (as 92(2) is another part
>of "this Act")

The nerve of those idiot judges of the Supreme Court of Canada to presume
that they understand the law better than you! Imagine that!

Tell us again which law school did you go to?
Then you can also explain to us the meaning of the term "fraudulent
conveyance" or "conveyance with the intent to defeat creditors"

I find it absolutely disgusting that parents of a 12 year old child would
try to use her in a legal argument.

BTW George, since you are such a tax expert, when was the last time you had
any taxable income? Never?


--
Greetings from Lotusland
Alan Baggett
2005-11-08 04:43:35 UTC
Permalink
©.® wrote:
> so the parents owed revenue canada a shit load of money, and decided to put
> the jeep in their 12 year old kids name so it would not get seized by
> revenue canada ?? what a bunch of idiots...

These are the important points as reported in the article:

- the Father had a tax debt and the mother did not.
- the jeep was the mothers.
- the mother transferred ownership of the jeep to the daughter.

If indeed these are the facts then it would appear that the seizure was
illegal.

Why?

Because the mother who owned the jeep and transferred it to the
daughter did not have a tax debt.

So the transfer of property that took place was just another ordinary
transfer.

If the jeep was in the Father's name then the CRA would have a case for
seizure under S.160 because he has a tax debt.

So maybe something is missing from the article or maybe the seizure was
illegal.





> "Alan Baggett" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.canada.com/victoria/story.html?id=e3f9cd15-879e-415e-a0ee-616e47c
> 79751
>
> Taxman goes after girl, 12
> Daughter becomes embroiled in dad's legal battles with Revenue Canada
>
> Kim Westad
> Times Colonist
>
>
> Saturday, November 05, 2005
>
> Imagine Abigayle Egeland-Northwood's surprise to find out that she owes
> the Canada Revenue Agency $13,000.
>
> She's never had a job, doesn't have a social insurance number and
> spends most of her free time playing with her five cats and two dogs.
> Oh yes, and she's 12 years old.
>
> "I don't think it's fair because I didn't do anything wrong. I don't
> work and I don't drive. I'm just a kid," the girl said in an interview
> Friday.
>
> Her parents feel she's being unfairly targeted because of her father's
> dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency. Nelson Northwood maintains that
> Parliament has not passed a law requiring Canadian citizens to pay
> income tax, an argument he lost in court two years ago. He was ordered
> to turn over records so the Canada Revenue Agency could collect some
> $700,000 they say is owed.
>
> Last week, the agency went to court again and received an order
> allowing a bailiff to seize the personal property of the Grade 7
> student, up to a value of $13,000.
>
> So on Wednesday, Abbey arrived home to find bailiffs seizing the 1998
> Jeep that her mother Karen Egeland transferred to her name in the
> spring of 2005.
>
> "I was mad and I was sad. I thought, "Why are they doing this to us?"
> Abbey said.
>
> Her father is more blunt.
>
> "She has not been charged with any crime, yet they came up here and
> took her private property. They're like witch hunters," Northwood said.
>
> Karen Egeland said there is nothing unlawful about having given her
> daughter the vehicle, which Egeland said was hers and not her
> husband's.
>
> While Egeland says she doesn't necessarily share her husband's views
> about income tax, she says it's unfair that solely because of being a
> family and living in the same home, Abbey is being drawn into the
> situation and penalized.
>
> "She is not her dad. She's a separate person and she's a child. She
> just turned 12," Egeland said.
>
> She worries what the Canada Revenue Agency will come after next of
> Abbey's, and also about the long-term implications on her daughter's
> name.
>
> Because of confidentiality, Canada Revenue Agency spokesman Dan McGrath
> cannot speak about a specific case.
>
> But speaking generally, he said that a section of the Income Tax Act
> deals with situations where people who owe taxes may transfer property
> or money to family members, regardless of age.
>
> The person to whom the property or money is transferred can themselves
> be liable for the taxes, up to the value of the asset transferred to
> them, or the asset can be seized, McGrath said.
>
> "We're obliged to take collection action against those who try to put
> their assets out of our reach," he said. "The legislation is to prevent
> a person from putting assets out of our reach."
>
> This covers transfers to any age of person who is in a "non-arm's
> length" relationship, usually interpreted to be a family member.
>
> © Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-08 09:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Revenue Canada CLAIMS(falsely, going by the law) that they were owed the money.

According to the posting, the FATHER owed money, and the MOTHER gave HER
vehicle to their daughter, so why would CRA have a claim to it?


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes


"©.®" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
"> so the parents owed revenue canada a shit load of money, and decided to pu
"> the jeep in their 12 year old kids name so it would not get seized by
"> revenue canada ?? what a bunch of idiots...
">
"> "Alan Baggett" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
"> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"> http://www.canada.com/victoria/story.html?id=e3f9cd15-879e-415e-a0ee-616e4
"> 79751
">
"> Taxman goes after girl, 12
"> Daughter becomes embroiled in dad's legal battles with Revenue Canada
">
"> Kim Westad
"> Times Colonist
">
">
"> Saturday, November 05, 2005
">
"> Imagine Abigayle Egeland-Northwood's surprise to find out that she owes
"> the Canada Revenue Agency $13,000.
">
"> She's never had a job, doesn't have a social insurance number and
"> spends most of her free time playing with her five cats and two dogs.
"> Oh yes, and she's 12 years old.
">
"> "I don't think it's fair because I didn't do anything wrong. I don't
"> work and I don't drive. I'm just a kid," the girl said in an interview
"> Friday.
">
"> Her parents feel she's being unfairly targeted because of her father's
"> dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency. Nelson Northwood maintains that
"> Parliament has not passed a law requiring Canadian citizens to pay
"> income tax, an argument he lost in court two years ago. He was ordered
"> to turn over records so the Canada Revenue Agency could collect some
"> $700,000 they say is owed.
">
"> Last week, the agency went to court again and received an order
"> allowing a bailiff to seize the personal property of the Grade 7
"> student, up to a value of $13,000.
">
"> So on Wednesday, Abbey arrived home to find bailiffs seizing the 1998
"> Jeep that her mother Karen Egeland transferred to her name in the
"> spring of 2005.
">
"> "I was mad and I was sad. I thought, "Why are they doing this to us?"
"> Abbey said.
">
"> Her father is more blunt.
">
"> "She has not been charged with any crime, yet they came up here and
"> took her private property. They're like witch hunters," Northwood said.
">
"> Karen Egeland said there is nothing unlawful about having given her
"> daughter the vehicle, which Egeland said was hers and not her
"> husband's.
">
"> While Egeland says she doesn't necessarily share her husband's views
"> about income tax, she says it's unfair that solely because of being a
"> family and living in the same home, Abbey is being drawn into the
"> situation and penalized.
">
"> "She is not her dad. She's a separate person and she's a child. She
"> just turned 12," Egeland said.
">
"> She worries what the Canada Revenue Agency will come after next of
"> Abbey's, and also about the long-term implications on her daughter's
"> name.
">
"> Because of confidentiality, Canada Revenue Agency spokesman Dan McGrath
"> cannot speak about a specific case.
">
"> But speaking generally, he said that a section of the Income Tax Act
"> deals with situations where people who owe taxes may transfer property
"> or money to family members, regardless of age.
">
"> The person to whom the property or money is transferred can themselves
"> be liable for the taxes, up to the value of the asset transferred to
"> them, or the asset can be seized, McGrath said.
">
"> "We're obliged to take collection action against those who try to put
"> their assets out of our reach," he said. "The legislation is to prevent
"> a person from putting assets out of our reach."
">
"> This covers transfers to any age of person who is in a "non-arm's
"> length" relationship, usually interpreted to be a family member.
">
"> © Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005
">
">
">
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Alan Baggett
2005-11-08 14:04:18 UTC
Permalink
If everything was reported correctly then it would appear that the CRA
should not have a claim to the vehivcle.
David
2005-11-09 05:47:39 UTC
Permalink
"Alan Baggett" <***@canada.com> wrote in
news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> If everything was reported correctly then it would appear that the CRA
> should not have a claim to the vehivcle.
>
>

THIS WOULD BE the same case no doubt, in the Victoria paper today!!


A 12-year-old girl watched her dad led away in handcuffs when he tried
to snub the authority of a provincial court judge Monday.

Carrying a pink and white purse with a kitty-cat face, Abigayle Egeland-
Northwood watched as sheriff's deputies took her father into custody
when he tried to walk out on a judge at the outset of his Victoria
trial.

Nelson Northwood is battling with Revenue Canada over what the
government contends is unpaid income tax. According to Northwood, the
total is $800,000 in unpaid taxes.

Northwood contends Parliament hasn't passed any law requiring citizens
to pay income tax so he doesn't have to pay.

As part of the years-long dispute, Canada Revenue Agency had property
seized last week including a 1998 Jeep transferred to the ownership of
Northwood's daughter.

At the outset of his trial on Monday, Northwood asked the court to hear
what his home-schooled daughter had to say.

"Canada Revenue stole my private property using administrative
procedures not by a lawful law of Canada," read Egeland-Northwood, who
is in Grade 7.

Later, in the courthouse hallway, mother Karen Egeland said she and her
husband helped their daughter with the sentence about "administrative
procedures." They had tried to anticipate what might be said in court.

Egeland also said she paid for the Jeep, with her own money, and
transferred ownership into her daughter's name, solely out of love. It
has nothing to do with her husband's battle with Revenue Canada.

"This jeep was never Nelson's. I'm the one who gave it to her because I
love her," she said.

Egeland also put the blame for any emotional trauma the child might feel
on the shoulders of the Canada Revenue Agency.

"I'm really concerned that Canada Revenue can do this to a child," said
Egeland.

"This has really scared her (Abigayle). She has been totally unfairly
treated," said the mother.

Northwood's courthouse appearance has been temporarily postponed.

After insisting his daughter speak, Northwood went on to demand the
Crown produce a copy of the law under which he has been charged.

He even produced a copy of a law called the Publication of Statutes Act,
that Northwood contends gives him the right to call for such a copy
inside a court of justice.

Northwood asked if he was standing in a "court of justice" and could he
see a certified copy of the income tax act.

When he didn't receive an answer that appeared to satisfy his queries,
he attempted to walk out of the courtroom.

That's when Judge Anthony Palmer asked the sheriff's deputies to detain
him. Later, after about an hour, court recommenced in a different room.
During that session, Northwood was brought back -- no longer in
handcuffs -- and was free to leave after the proceedings.

Palmer agreed to adjourn the trial and it was set over until Feb. 13.

The Crown requested the delay, in the face of a legal citation that
indicated trial could proceed even if Northwood walked out.

As Monday's proceedings ended, Palmer put his distaste on the record and
plain to Northwood.

"Having people taken into custody, having to use the services of the
sheriff, I find that very distasteful," said Palmer.

"This was not an easy thing to do," he said.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005
Greg Carr
2005-11-09 15:32:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:47:39 GMT, David <***@david.net> wrote:

>"Alan Baggett" <***@canada.com> wrote in
>news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> If everything was reported correctly then it would appear that the CRA
>> should not have a claim to the vehivcle.
>>
>>
>
>THIS WOULD BE the same case no doubt, in the Victoria paper today!!
>
>
>A 12-year-old girl watched her dad led away in handcuffs when he tried
>to snub the authority of a provincial court judge Monday.
>
>Carrying a pink and white purse with a kitty-cat face, Abigayle Egeland-
>Northwood watched as sheriff's deputies took her father into custody
>when he tried to walk out on a judge at the outset of his Victoria
>trial.
>
>Nelson Northwood is battling with Revenue Canada over what the
>government contends is unpaid income tax. According to Northwood, the
>total is $800,000 in unpaid taxes.
>
>Northwood contends Parliament hasn't passed any law requiring citizens
>to pay income tax so he doesn't have to pay.
>
>As part of the years-long dispute, Canada Revenue Agency had property
>seized last week including a 1998 Jeep transferred to the ownership of
>Northwood's daughter.
>
>At the outset of his trial on Monday, Northwood asked the court to hear
>what his home-schooled daughter had to say.
>
>"Canada Revenue stole my private property using administrative
>procedures not by a lawful law of Canada," read Egeland-Northwood, who
>is in Grade 7.
>
>Later, in the courthouse hallway, mother Karen Egeland said she and her
>husband helped their daughter with the sentence about "administrative
>procedures." They had tried to anticipate what might be said in court.
>
>Egeland also said she paid for the Jeep, with her own money, and
>transferred ownership into her daughter's name, solely out of love. It
>has nothing to do with her husband's battle with Revenue Canada.
>
>"This jeep was never Nelson's. I'm the one who gave it to her because I
>love her," she said.
>
>Egeland also put the blame for any emotional trauma the child might feel
>on the shoulders of the Canada Revenue Agency.
>
>"I'm really concerned that Canada Revenue can do this to a child," said
>Egeland.
>
>"This has really scared her (Abigayle). She has been totally unfairly
>treated," said the mother.
>
>Northwood's courthouse appearance has been temporarily postponed.
>
>After insisting his daughter speak, Northwood went on to demand the
>Crown produce a copy of the law under which he has been charged.
>
>He even produced a copy of a law called the Publication of Statutes Act,
>that Northwood contends gives him the right to call for such a copy
>inside a court of justice.
>
>Northwood asked if he was standing in a "court of justice" and could he
>see a certified copy of the income tax act.
>
>When he didn't receive an answer that appeared to satisfy his queries,
>he attempted to walk out of the courtroom.
>
>That's when Judge Anthony Palmer asked the sheriff's deputies to detain
>him. Later, after about an hour, court recommenced in a different room.
>During that session, Northwood was brought back -- no longer in
>handcuffs -- and was free to leave after the proceedings.
>
>Palmer agreed to adjourn the trial and it was set over until Feb. 13.
>
>The Crown requested the delay, in the face of a legal citation that
>indicated trial could proceed even if Northwood walked out.
>
>As Monday's proceedings ended, Palmer put his distaste on the record and
>plain to Northwood.
>
>"Having people taken into custody, having to use the services of the
>sheriff, I find that very distasteful," said Palmer.
>
>"This was not an easy thing to do," he said.
>
>© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005

Try not to get raped in jail. 800k might interest some of the other
prisoners as well. Why not run out of the courtroom?

Sorry excuse for a mother. Never heard of a 12 year old owning a jeep.
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-08 09:12:46 UTC
Permalink
"Alan Baggett" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
"B> Her parents feel she's being unfairly targeted because of her father's
"B> dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency. Nelson Northwood maintains that
"B> Parliament has not passed a law requiring Canadian citizens to pay
"B> income tax, an argument he lost in court two years ago. He was ordered
"B> to turn over records so the Canada Revenue Agency could collect some
"B> $700,000 they say is owed.

He's right about there not being any law requiring Canadians to pay income tax,
so why is C.R.A. coming after him?

Why is it the law isn't protecting this citizen from a group clearly in breech
of the law?


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Vicegerent
2005-11-08 16:40:24 UTC
Permalink
GAP,

Did you not read my post (#4 ) above?

> (GAP): He's right about there not being any law
requiring Canadians to pay income tax, so why is
C.R.A. coming after him?

> Why is it the law isn't protecting this citizen from
a group clearly in breech of the law?

You must get it through your head that when YOU
think of 'a citizen', you think of an adult 'free will man'
(or free will woman).

When those who are members or an agency of
government think 'citizen', they think of a fictional
'legal identity', a name created and owned by the
Crown,
- the name they put on the Crown owned Birth Certificate,
- the documentation of a slave child born to slave parents.

The Income Tax Act is one of many rules within a
corporation, called Parliament, to rule and regulate
the Crown's slaves.

The Income Tax Act has absolutely NOTHING to
do with 'free will man', although, by deceit, it is
intended to be used against free will man.

So, by getting Canadians to use and acknowledge
that their name is the name on the Birth Certificate,
they fraudulently deceive Canadians into making
themselves subject to the Income Tax.

Until you understand this, you are 'tilting at windmills'.

Learn how to file for this legal identity, and negate
the effect of your ignorantly acknowledging that
you are 'one and the same' as the name on the
Birth Certificate which was created by the Crown
(a corporation) out of the given amd family names
filed by your slave parents. They signified that they
were slaves by telling the government that their
names, as parents of the newborn, was the name
on their birth certificates.

Your body is claimed by the Crown until you
reach the age of majority. At that point, your
mind becomes 'captain' of your earthen vessel,
your physical body. The labour of your 'vessel'
can only be claimed by the Crown, by deceit.

http://kanata.250free.com/filingT1.htm

Vicegerent
Abbot
2005-11-08 16:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Vicegerent wrote:
> GAP,
>
> Did you not read my post (#4 ) above?
>
> > (GAP): He's right about there not being any law
> requiring Canadians to pay income tax, so why is
> C.R.A. coming after him?
>
> > Why is it the law isn't protecting this citizen from
> a group clearly in breech of the law?
>
> You must get it through your head that when YOU
> think of 'a citizen', you think of an adult 'free will man'
> (or free will woman).
>
> When those who are members or an agency of
> government think 'citizen', they think of a fictional
> 'legal identity', a name created and owned by the
> Crown,
> - the name they put on the Crown owned Birth Certificate,
> - the documentation of a slave child born to slave parents.
>
> The Income Tax Act is one of many rules within a
> corporation, called Parliament, to rule and regulate
> the Crown's slaves.
>
> The Income Tax Act has absolutely NOTHING to
> do with 'free will man', although, by deceit, it is
> intended to be used against free will man.

Abbot) Caution: Eldon Warman's borrowed straw man argument has no basis
in law and has been rejected in every court in which it has been
argued.

> So, by getting Canadians to use and acknowledge
> that their name is the name on the Birth Certificate,
> they fraudulently deceive Canadians into making
> themselves subject to the Income Tax.
>
> Until you understand this, you are 'tilting at windmills'.
>
> Learn how to file for this legal identity, and negate
> the effect of your ignorantly acknowledging that
> you are 'one and the same' as the name on the
> Birth Certificate which was created by the Crown
> (a corporation) out of the given amd family names
> filed by your slave parents. They signified that they
> were slaves by telling the government that their
> names, as parents of the newborn, was the name
> on their birth certificates.
>
> Your body is claimed by the Crown until you
> reach the age of majority. At that point, your
> mind becomes 'captain' of your earthen vessel,
> your physical body. The labour of your 'vessel'
> can only be claimed by the Crown, by deceit.
>
> http://kanata.250free.com/filingT1.htm
>
> Vicegerent
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-08 19:03:49 UTC
Permalink
His argument might have validity south of the border, but there, like here, the
courts work for the government, and will not rule in a way that'll result in
the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue(even if technically
illicit)


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes


"Abbot" <***@emailaccount.com> wrote:
">
"> Vicegerent wrote:
"> > GAP,
"> >
"> > Did you not read my post (#4 ) above?
"> >
"> > > (GAP): He's right about there not being any law
"> > requiring Canadians to pay income tax, so why is
"> > C.R.A. coming after him?
"> >
"> > > Why is it the law isn't protecting this citizen from
"> > a group clearly in breech of the law?
"> >
"> > You must get it through your head that when YOU
"> > think of 'a citizen', you think of an adult 'free will man'
"> > (or free will woman).
"> >
"> > When those who are members or an agency of
"> > government think 'citizen', they think of a fictional
"> > 'legal identity', a name created and owned by the
"> > Crown,
"> > - the name they put on the Crown owned Birth Certificate,
"> > - the documentation of a slave child born to slave parents.
"> >
"> > The Income Tax Act is one of many rules within a
"> > corporation, called Parliament, to rule and regulate
"> > the Crown's slaves.
"> >
"> > The Income Tax Act has absolutely NOTHING to
"> > do with 'free will man', although, by deceit, it is
"> > intended to be used against free will man.
">
"> Abbot) Caution: Eldon Warman's borrowed straw man argument has no basis
"> in law and has been rejected in every court in which it has been
"> argued.
">
"> > So, by getting Canadians to use and acknowledge
"> > that their name is the name on the Birth Certificate,
"> > they fraudulently deceive Canadians into making
"> > themselves subject to the Income Tax.
"> >
"> > Until you understand this, you are 'tilting at windmills'.
"> >
"> > Learn how to file for this legal identity, and negate
"> > the effect of your ignorantly acknowledging that
"> > you are 'one and the same' as the name on the
"> > Birth Certificate which was created by the Crown
"> > (a corporation) out of the given amd family names
"> > filed by your slave parents. They signified that they
"> > were slaves by telling the government that their
"> > names, as parents of the newborn, was the name
"> > on their birth certificates.
"> >
"> > Your body is claimed by the Crown until you
"> > reach the age of majority. At that point, your
"> > mind becomes 'captain' of your earthen vessel,
"> > your physical body. The labour of your 'vessel'
"> > can only be claimed by the Crown, by deceit.
"> >
"> > http://kanata.250free.com/filingT1.htm
"> >
"> > Vicegerent
">
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2005-11-08 19:03:48 UTC
Permalink
You're using the American argument; Canada's is a lot simpler: Section 92(2) of
the Constitution Act CLEARLY negates the right of Ottawa to impose direct taxes
(eg. income tax, GST)


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)

(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes


"Vicegerent" <***@mail.samhill.co.uk> wrote:
"> GAP,
">
"> Did you not read my post (#4 ) above?
">
"> > (GAP): He's right about there not being any law
"> requiring Canadians to pay income tax, so why is
"> C.R.A. coming after him?
">
"> > Why is it the law isn't protecting this citizen from
"> a group clearly in breech of the law?
">
"> You must get it through your head that when YOU
"> think of 'a citizen', you think of an adult 'free will man'
"> (or free will woman).
">
"> When those who are members or an agency of
"> government think 'citizen', they think of a fictional
"> 'legal identity', a name created and owned by the
"> Crown,
"> - the name they put on the Crown owned Birth Certificate,
"> - the documentation of a slave child born to slave parents.
">
"> The Income Tax Act is one of many rules within a
"> corporation, called Parliament, to rule and regulate
"> the Crown's slaves.
">
"> The Income Tax Act has absolutely NOTHING to
"> do with 'free will man', although, by deceit, it is
"> intended to be used against free will man.
">
"> So, by getting Canadians to use and acknowledge
"> that their name is the name on the Birth Certificate,
"> they fraudulently deceive Canadians into making
"> themselves subject to the Income Tax.
">
"> Until you understand this, you are 'tilting at windmills'.
">
"> Learn how to file for this legal identity, and negate
"> the effect of your ignorantly acknowledging that
"> you are 'one and the same' as the name on the
"> Birth Certificate which was created by the Crown
"> (a corporation) out of the given amd family names
"> filed by your slave parents. They signified that they
"> were slaves by telling the government that their
"> names, as parents of the newborn, was the name
"> on their birth certificates.
">
"> Your body is claimed by the Crown until you
"> reach the age of majority. At that point, your
"> mind becomes 'captain' of your earthen vessel,
"> your physical body. The labour of your 'vessel'
"> can only be claimed by the Crown, by deceit.
">
"> http://kanata.250free.com/filingT1.htm
">
"> Vicegerent
">
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Vicegerent
2005-11-09 04:30:09 UTC
Permalink
> GAP wrote:
> You're using the American argument; Canada's is a
> lot simpler: Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act
> CLEARLY negates the right of Ottawa to impose
> direct taxes (eg. income tax, GST)

If you have a Birth Certificate, and can obtain
a copy of your Statement of Birth from your
Province of birth, the system for detaxing of
which I speak works just as well in Canada
as Warman has experienced it to have worked
in the USA. Also, Warman tells me that a
retired man who works part time in Penticton
had his Warman style return acknowledged
by CRA and received all of his withheld wages
back (September 2005).

I hate to have to correct you, but the income
tax and the GST are 'indirect taxes'. An
indirect tax is a tax on a party which can pass
that tax on to customers or clients in the price
of goods or services. That means that the
taxpayer must be a business.

The 'strawman' is in the business of 'agency
in commerce' and 'trust'. (Trustee in trust)

You, the free will man are not a 'taxpayer'.
There can be no such legislation subjecting
a free will man to taxation.

Why do you suppose there is a GST rebate
for 'taxpayers'? (persons)

Is it not the same as with any business where
the business is unable to pass along the tax to
a client or customer, the GST paid by that
business is rebated. As you say, the Fed guv
cannot collect a direct tax. If there was no
rebate where the business could not pass it
along, it would then be a direct tax on that
business.

Vicegerent
Abbot
2005-11-09 08:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Vicegerent wrote:
> > GAP wrote:
> > You're using the American argument; Canada's is a
> > lot simpler: Section 92(2) of the Constitution Act
> > CLEARLY negates the right of Ottawa to impose
> > direct taxes (eg. income tax, GST)
>
> If you have a Birth Certificate, and can obtain
> a copy of your Statement of Birth from your
> Province of birth, the system for detaxing of
> which I speak works just as well in Canada
> as Warman has experienced it to have worked
> in the USA. Also, Warman tells me that a
> retired man who works part time in Penticton
> had his Warman style return acknowledged
> by CRA and received all of his withheld wages
> back (September 2005).

Abbot) One suspects his return was thought to indicate that he had no
income. If and when the tax man catches on there will be yet another
detax dupe sacrificed at Warman's alter of government hatred.

> I hate to have to correct you, but the income
> tax and the GST are 'indirect taxes'. An
> indirect tax is a tax on a party which can pass
> that tax on to customers or clients in the price
> of goods or services. That means that the
> taxpayer must be a business.
>
> The 'strawman' is in the business of 'agency
> in commerce' and 'trust'. (Trustee in trust)
>
> You, the free will man are not a 'taxpayer'.
> There can be no such legislation subjecting
> a free will man to taxation.
>
> Why do you suppose there is a GST rebate
> for 'taxpayers'? (persons)
>
> Is it not the same as with any business where
> the business is unable to pass along the tax to
> a client or customer, the GST paid by that
> business is rebated. As you say, the Fed guv
> cannot collect a direct tax. If there was no
> rebate where the business could not pass it
> along, it would then be a direct tax on that
> business.
>
> Vicegerent
Vicegerent
2005-11-10 02:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Hell, you are correct for once, Jack.

The free will man who is commonly called Eldon of the Warman
family did not have any income in 2001, or any other year
of his life - at least as 'income' is defined in any income tax
act, in Canada or the USA.

That is what Warman has been trying to tell the readers of
this forum for several years now, and it finally takes Jack,
(AKA: Abbot), to corroborate the truth that Warman has
been trying to get across to sleeping Canadians and
Americans all these years.

It is the 'legal identity' - strawman/natural person who
has 'income'. And Eldon is not one and the same as
the strawman, ELDON WARMAN (or Eldon Warman).
2, countem', TWO parties. One Eldon and one ELDON
WARMAN.

And, since the strawman is only an agent and trustee,
it only gets a fee, and that fee need be NO MORE
THAN the BASIC EXEMPTION for an 'individual' -
a natural person/strawman.

http://kanata.250free.com/filingT1.htm

Vicegerent
David
2005-11-11 19:04:39 UTC
Permalink
***@vcn.bc.ca wrote in news:dkqsqk$a1m$***@vcn.bc.ca:

> You're using the American argument; Canada's is a lot simpler: Section
> 92(2) of the Constitution Act CLEARLY negates the right of Ottawa to
> impose direct taxes (eg. income tax, GST)
>
>
> --
>
> Because I care,
>
>|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)
>
> (Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
> -=-
> In essentials, unity;
> In non-essentials, liberty;
> in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
> -=-
> note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com
>
> PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
>
>
> "Vicegerent" <***@mail.samhill.co.uk> wrote:
> "> GAP,
> ">
> "> Did you not read my post (#4 ) above?
> ">
> "> > (GAP): He's right about there not being any law
> "> requiring Canadians to pay income tax, so why is
> "> C.R.A. coming after him?
> ">
> "> > Why is it the law isn't protecting this citizen from
> "> a group clearly in breech of the law?
> ">
> "> You must get it through your head that when YOU
> "> think of 'a citizen', you think of an adult 'free will man'
> "> (or free will woman).
> ">
> "> When those who are members or an agency of
> "> government think 'citizen', they think of a fictional
> "> 'legal identity', a name created and owned by the
> "> Crown,
> "> - the name they put on the Crown owned Birth Certificate,
> "> - the documentation of a slave child born to slave parents.
> ">
> "> The Income Tax Act is one of many rules within a
> "> corporation, called Parliament, to rule and regulate
> "> the Crown's slaves.
> ">
> "> The Income Tax Act has absolutely NOTHING to
> "> do with 'free will man', although, by deceit, it is
> "> intended to be used against free will man.
> ">
> "> So, by getting Canadians to use and acknowledge
> "> that their name is the name on the Birth Certificate,
> "> they fraudulently deceive Canadians into making
> "> themselves subject to the Income Tax.
> ">
> "> Until you understand this, you are 'tilting at windmills'.
> ">
> "> Learn how to file for this legal identity, and negate
> "> the effect of your ignorantly acknowledging that
> "> you are 'one and the same' as the name on the
> "> Birth Certificate which was created by the Crown
> "> (a corporation) out of the given amd family names
> "> filed by your slave parents. They signified that they
> "> were slaves by telling the government that their
> "> names, as parents of the newborn, was the name
> "> on their birth certificates.
> ">
> "> Your body is claimed by the Crown until you
> "> reach the age of majority. At that point, your
> "> mind becomes 'captain' of your earthen vessel,
> "> your physical body. The labour of your 'vessel'
> "> can only be claimed by the Crown, by deceit.
> ">
> "> http://kanata.250free.com/filingT1.htm
> ">
> "> Vicegerent
> ">

True except that this section of the BNA has been corruptly perverted at
the court level right up to the privy council.

I wonder who has been coaching Mr Northwood on his views? Be
intersting to know which detax group is having their arguments tested in
this case.

Would it be Eldon Warman?
PV
2005-11-08 22:49:39 UTC
Permalink
"Vicegerent" <***@mail.samhill.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> GAP,
>
Boy the colder weather sure brings out the loons. ***PLONK***

PV
Alan Baggett
2005-11-09 18:40:48 UTC
Permalink
This UPDATE was posted by David but as some might have missed it has
been reposted below.

---------------------------
A 12-year-old girl watched her dad led away in handcuffs when he tried
to snub the authority of a provincial court judge Monday.

Carrying a pink and white purse with a kitty-cat face, Abigayle
Egeland-
Northwood watched as sheriff's deputies took her father into custody
when he tried to walk out on a judge at the outset of his Victoria
trial.

Nelson Northwood is battling with Revenue Canada over what the
government contends is unpaid income tax. According to Northwood, the
total is $800,000 in unpaid taxes.

Northwood contends Parliament hasn't passed any law requiring citizens
to pay income tax so he doesn't have to pay.

As part of the years-long dispute, Canada Revenue Agency had property
seized last week including a 1998 Jeep transferred to the ownership of
Northwood's daughter.

At the outset of his trial on Monday, Northwood asked the court to hear

what his home-schooled daughter had to say.

"Canada Revenue stole my private property using administrative
procedures not by a lawful law of Canada," read Egeland-Northwood, who
is in Grade 7.

Later, in the courthouse hallway, mother Karen Egeland said she and her
husband helped their daughter with the sentence about
"administrative procedures." They had tried to anticipate what might be
said in court.

Egeland also said she paid for the Jeep, with her own money, and
transferred ownership into her daughter's name, solely out of love. It
has nothing to do with her husband's battle with Revenue Canada.

"This jeep was never Nelson's. I'm the one who gave it to her because I

love her," she said.

Egeland also put the blame for any emotional trauma the child might
feel
on the shoulders of the Canada Revenue Agency.

"I'm really concerned that Canada Revenue can do this to a child," said

Egeland.

"This has really scared her (Abigayle). She has been totally unfairly
treated," said the mother.

Northwood's courthouse appearance has been temporarily postponed.

After insisting his daughter speak, Northwood went on to demand the
Crown produce a copy of the law under which he has been charged.

He even produced a copy of a law called the Publication of Statutes
Act, that Northwood contends gives him the right to call for such a
copy
inside a court of justice.


Northwood asked if he was standing in a "court of justice" and could he

see a certified copy of the income tax act.

When he didn't receive an answer that appeared to satisfy his queries,
he attempted to walk out of the courtroom.

That's when Judge Anthony Palmer asked the sheriff's deputies to detain

him. Later, after about an hour, court recommenced in a different room.

During that session, Northwood was brought back -- no longer in
handcuffs -- and was free to leave after the proceedings.

Palmer agreed to adjourn the trial and it was set over until Feb. 13.

The Crown requested the delay, in the face of a legal citation that
indicated trial could proceed even if Northwood walked out.

As Monday's proceedings ended, Palmer put his distaste on the record
and plain to Northwood.

"Having people taken into custody, having to use the services of the
sheriff, I find that very distasteful," said Palmer.

"This was not an easy thing to do," he said.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005
Vicegerent
2005-11-10 02:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Yes, Predator Roy of CRA allegiance
just posted it as well.

Seems that Judge Palmer must have been
reading the newspaper while ignoring the
testimony of the slave, Nelson Northwood,
as per Section 6 of the Fugitive Slave Act
1850.

Seems that all those fires in France and
Germany may be scortching his ass.

Because, as people begin to wake up here in Canada as to the tactics of
these BLACK
ROBED THUGS, and the grand scam they
have been perpretating on them over the
last many years, shit-heads like Palmer
will find themselves in something very
hot, and it may be warmer than hot water.

But, then again, maybe not. Canadians are
just 'fu*king stupid jerks. And, I doubt that
will change any time soon.
Greg Carr
2005-11-10 08:45:46 UTC
Permalink
You racists go PC in jail so fast it isn't funny.

On 9 Nov 2005 18:20:41 -0800, "Vicegerent" <***@mail.samhill.co.uk>
wrote:

>Yes, Predator Roy of CRA allegiance
>just posted it as well.
>
>Seems that Judge Palmer must have been
>reading the newspaper while ignoring the
>testimony of the slave, Nelson Northwood,
>as per Section 6 of the Fugitive Slave Act
>1850.
>
>Seems that all those fires in France and
>Germany may be scortching his ass.
>
>Because, as people begin to wake up here in Canada as to the tactics of
>these BLACK
>ROBED THUGS, and the grand scam they
>have been perpretating on them over the
>last many years, shit-heads like Palmer
>will find themselves in something very
>hot, and it may be warmer than hot water.
>
>But, then again, maybe not. Canadians are
>just 'fu*king stupid jerks. And, I doubt that
>will change any time soon.
Vicegerent
2005-11-10 13:58:43 UTC
Permalink
What *RACE* are you talking about, Greg?

Indian No Place 500? High Price, er Grand Prix?
Tour de France? Which one?

Vicegerent
Abbot
2005-11-10 14:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Vicegerent wrote:
> What *RACE* are you talking about, Greg?

Abbot) Who's the racist?

You

----------------------------------------

The Tribunal hereby orders;

Having found that Eldon Warman did communicate, repeatedly, by means of
the facilities of a telecommunications undertaking within the
legislative authority of Parliament, matter that is likely to expose
people of the Jewish faith to hatred or contempt, the complainant's
section 11 Complaint is substantiated.

The Tribunal orders that the Respondent, Eldon Warman, cease the
discriminatory practice of communicating telephonically or causing to
be communicated telephonically by means of the facilities of a
telecommunications undertaking within the legislative authority of
Parliament, matters of the type contained in Exhibits HR-4 to HR-49, or
any other messages of a substantially similar content, that are likely
to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the
fact that that person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a
prohibited ground of discrimination, contrary to s. 13 (1) of the
Canadian Human Rights Act.

Having regard to the fact that much of the material at issue in this
hearing was posted on Google.com newsgroups the Tribunal would
encourage the proprietors of the Google.com website to remove the
offending material from its site.

The Tribunal will provide its full reasons for this decision and its
decision regarding the Commission's request for a penalty of $10,000
pursuant to s.54(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act in due course.
---- Canadian Human Rights Commission. May 26, 2005

---------------------------------------

So, Eldon, the only question remains as to what the authorities will do
with you now that you have threatened process servers, ignored the fine
and have continued to post racist and anti-semetic materials here.

We'll find out soon.

> Indian No Place 500? High Price, er Grand Prix?
> Tour de France? Which one?
>
> Vicegerent
Vicegerent
2005-11-10 15:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Hmmm... Since when did a Zionism/Zionist, a
philosophic belief system/one who believes
in/lives that belief system, become 'a RACE"????

Since most of those who call themselves Jews are
an Asian aryan tribe called the Khazars, converted
to a philosophic belief system as laid out in the
Pharisee Babylonian Talmud, How did they get
to be a 'RACE'?????

And, since someone who believes in/lives the
philosophy of the Talmud/Pharisees and has
nothing to do with people who have their physical
ancestral roots in the Middle East, the term
'anti-semitic' is just a buzzword meaning
'Those whom the Zionists hate'.

Vicegerent
Abbot
2005-11-10 15:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Abbot) Eldon, tell it to the authorities when they come for you,
psychoboy.

You can parse words and you want but the fact is the tribunal ordered
that you stop posting your racist screeds here. You subsequently
changed your handle and upon losing your temper continued from time to
time to posts much of the same anti-Semitic materials.

Your only hope is the authorities see you as insane, rather than
criminal.

You should have gone and gotten that mental health services I informed
you of years ago. It would have helped an insanity plea.

But now it's done, Eldon.

Vicegerent wrote:
> Hmmm... Since when did a Zionism/Zionist, a
> philosophic belief system/one who believes
> in/lives that belief system, become 'a RACE"????
>
> Since most of those who call themselves Jews are
> an Asian aryan tribe called the Khazars, converted
> to a philosophic belief system as laid out in the
> Pharisee Babylonian Talmud, How did they get
> to be a 'RACE'?????
>
> And, since someone who believes in/lives the
> philosophy of the Talmud/Pharisees and has
> nothing to do with people who have their physical
> ancestral roots in the Middle East, the term
> 'anti-semitic' is just a buzzword meaning
> 'Those whom the Zionists hate'.
>
> Vicegerent
Loading...