• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Examples of Freeman success stories

Chaetognath said:
In the case of Brandi-Ann Beverly Shepherd v. Her Majesty the Queen and Alexis Nicole Washington v. Her Majesty the Queen it looks like the issue was that the subordinate court had no jurisdiction, and so no 'real' appeal had occurred at the provincial court of final resort.

I will investigate the Quebec case further.

Chaetognath.
Click to expand...

IANAL but I wondered if that subordinate thing played into their response. The Catch-22 is nicely played on the part of the Alberta Bench. :D

Fitz
 
fitzgibbon said:
OTOH, it does put an entirely different spin on "ice fishing". :)

Fitz
Click to expand...


See, if you'd done the research, you'd know that "ice fishing" is simply a distortion of the common law practice of "Fish Icing". There was a time when Freemen in A Boat could freely gather and ice all the fish they wanted, as provided by the bounty of the Sea, but then Admiralty Law stepped in and declared the Seas were actually Oceans, and subject to their Statues, and forbade Fish Icing except under colour of Law. They've so degraded our Common Law rights to Fish Icing that most people don't even know the proper term, and have been gulled into sitting in Stupid Shacks on The Ice, thinking they'll catch something other than NAMONYA!

:boxedin:
 
Given that :Chief :El's appeal was from a decision declaring him a vexatious litigant, could it be that the SCC had no jurisdiction over the issue because it was a matter of the ACA determining its own process, and therefore within the unique jurisdiction of the ACA and not subject to appeal to the SCC?

I haven't done any research on whether other vexatious litigant declarations have been appealed to the SCC; that would be where I would start.
 
The Supreme Court of Canada is quite willing to ‘dismiss’ leave applications where the litigant advances FOTLish arguments. A few examples I had laying around:

R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed, 2011 CanLII 62450

Subjects addressed at the British Columbia Court of Appeal:

-the general relationship between the state and a person is not solely one of contract (at para. 32)

-an alleged defect in Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation oath does not affect government or judicial authority (at paras. 31-32)

-legislation, common-law and court principles and procedures are not subject to “God’s Law” or other divinely ordained rules or principles (at para. 31)

-the state has an intrinsic authority to levy taxes; a person does not have to agree via contract to being subject to tax (at para. 31)

-taxpayers include both corporations and natural persons (at para. 27)

-spelling your name in the format of [Firstname]-[Middlename]: [Lastname], i.e. “David-Kevin: Lindsay”, does not mean you are a separate person from “David Kevin Lindsay” [R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203 at para. 7, [2009] 1 C.T.C 86, affirmed 2010 BCSC 831, [2010] 5 C.T.C. 174, affirmed 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76]​


R. v. Sydel, 2010 BCSC 1473, [2011] 1 C.T.C. 200, affirmed 2011 BCCA 103, leave dismissed [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 191

Subjects affirmed / addressed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal:

-freemasonry does not secretly control the British Columbia government, courts, and the CRA [2010 BCSC 1473 at paras. 18-23, 39]

-the validity of the 1948 version of the Income Tax Act is irrelevant to current tax legislation [2010 BCSC 1473 at paras. 24-25, 35]​


R. v. Klundert (2004), 242 D.L.R. (4th) 644, 190 O.A.C. 36 (Ont. C.A.), leave dismissed [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 463

Subjects addressed by the Ontario Court of Appeal:

-a claim that the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional or that a person is not required to pay income tax proves the taxpayer has attempted to evade income tax (Income Tax Act, s. 239(1)(d))

-the argument that law “does not apply to me because I choose to have it not apply to me” is an issue of jurisdiction and a question of law​


R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767, 93 O.R. (3d) 81, leave dismissed [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 522

Subjects addressed by the Ontario Court of Appeal:

-taxpayers include both corporations and natural persons (at para. 19)

-claiming to be a tax protestor does not eliminate the obligation to pay income tax (at para. 24)

-the argument that law “does not apply to me because I choose to have it not apply to me” is an issue of jurisdiction and a question of law (at para. 20)​


R. v. Kennedy, 2004 BCCA 638, 207 B.C.A.C. 102, leave refused [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 15

Subjects addressed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal:

-a claim that the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional or that a person is not required to pay income tax proves the taxpayer has attempted to evade income tax (Income Tax Act, s. 239(1)(d)) (at para. 14)​


These suggests that FOTLish arguments and misconduct aren't enough for the Supreme Court to lose its jurisdiction to dismiss a leave application. Something about :Chief :El's application must have been different...

Playing devil's advocate, and roleplaying a FOTL'er, that would suggest one of two alternatives:

1. I immediately order a copy of whatever :Chief :El sent to the Supreme Court of Canada, and scrutinize it for whatever magic language or totem has immobilized that court, or

2. :Chief :El is obviously correct, and that was recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, and now I should either:

a) join the At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors (if they'll take me) and reign triumphant over the Atlan, Amexen, and Turtle Island Land of Frogs, or

b) get express recognition of my Freeman rights as authorized by the one true rule of the land, :Chief :El.​

Chaetognath.
 
Mojo:

“Care to elaborate?”

Jon:

“Given that :Chief :El's appeal was from a decision declaring him a vexatious litigant, could it be that the SCC had no jurisdiction over the issue because it was a matter of the ACA determining its own process, and therefore within the unique jurisdiction of the ACA and not subject to appeal to the SCC?”

There’s some weirdness in play here. The Alberta Queen’s Bench has conducted ‘appeals’ of a vexatious litigant declaration as a judicial review: R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390. The Court of Appeal also has heard a vexatious litigant declaration “appeal” from Queen’s Bench: Liu v. Matrikon Inc., 2010 ABCA 383.

However, then there’s an analysis that concludes a vexatious litigant has to ask permission for an appeal from the very judge who declared the litigant vexatious: Wong v. Giannacopoulos, 2011 ABCA 277.

Another alternative is that it has something to do with the Court of Appeal Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-30, s. 7:

7. A quorum of the Court consists of 3 judges unless otherwise provided by the Alberta Rules of Court.​

There is room here for some very interesting litigation, as I am not certain one can comfortably align all these principles.

Or it’s simply that :Chief :El finally figured out the magic words. And triumphant over state and court authority, sabotaged his own appeal.

Chaetognath.
 
Chaetognath: Wow, man, you really know this stuff!

I was wondering: Do you have any info on court cases related to the question of, do you have to have a Social Insurance Number, in order to be obligated to pay tax? There's a discussion going on in this other thread where "Freeman Menard" is advancing this argument, and it's one I haven't seen explicitly addressed anywhere else yet.
 
Horatius: why thank you!

As for your request? Dead easy:

R. v. Loosdrecht, 2009 BCPC 196 at para. 39, [2009] 6 C.T.C. 188: FMOTLish person suddenly avoids tax documentation with a SIN (para. 15) and then manufactures T4's with his name in all capitals and without a SIN (para. 27) and insists his T1 tax return is prepared in parallel (para. 27). The fact he adopted this strategy is proof of his intention to evade taxes:

[58] For Mr. Loosdrecht to suddenly determine that through such transparent mechanics as the insistence that the letters of his name be capitalized, refusal of a GST registration number, the refusal to be identified by a social insurance number, the adoption of the title "natural person" or the addition of gobbledegook wording to the attestation in his income tax return, he could thereby lawfully create a parallel existence separate and apart from his responsibilities as a taxpayer, defies any logic and, in particular, is not believable in the context of a person in his circumstances. His conduct amounts to wilful blindness at law.

[59] I agree with the Crown's submission that the law of mistake, that is the mistaken belief held by Mr. Loosdrecht that the Income Tax Act does not apply to him in his capacity of a natural person, is not a defence. I agree with Judge Wingham of this court when he stated in R. v. Turnnir, supra at paragraph 78 the following:

Mistake of law is only available as a defence to tax evasion in very limited circumstances. (R. v. Klundert 2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), (2004), 187 CCC(3d) 417 Ont. CA, leave to appeal to SCC refused, R. v. Kennedy, [2004] BCJ 2588 (BCCA))

A mistaken belief that a statute is invalid or otherwise not applicable to his conduct is a mistake of law which is irrelevant to the fault requirement of tax evasion.​

[60] I find the Crown has proven that the accused possessed the mens rea in making false or deceptive statements in his tax returns, and in wilfully evading or attempting to evade payment of income tax in respect to each of the years from 2001 through 2004 and I find him guilty on all counts.​

See also:

R. v. Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67 at para. 54: convicted of evasion on that basis at para. 72.

R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107: persons convicted of tax evasion for attempting to apply the Porisky scheme, comment on SIN's at para. 50.

R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460: another individual convicted of tax evasion using the Porisky scheme. The offender attempted to unilaterally "revoke" his SIN (para. 65) which "defied logic".

Hope that helps!

Chaetognath.
 
Canadian tax question. If you make less money than the minimum (about 10,800 I believe) and do not have to pay taxes do you still have to file a return?
 
Horatius said:
See, if you'd done the research, you'd know that "ice fishing" is simply a distortion of the common law practice of "Fish Icing". There was a time when Freemen in A Boat could freely gather and ice all the fish they wanted, as provided by the bounty of the Sea, but then Admiralty Law stepped in and declared the Seas were actually Oceans, and subject to their Statues, and forbade Fish Icing except under colour of Law. They've so degraded our Common Law rights to Fish Icing that most people don't even know the proper term, and have been gulled into sitting in Stupid Shacks on The Ice, thinking they'll catch something other than NAMONYA!

:boxedin:
Click to expand...

I yield and bow at the feet of the Master. ALL HAIL HORATIUS; MASTER OF PITH! :D

Fitz

p.s. Oh and nominated BTW. Brought a tear to my eye, that did; damn near coffee to screen too but it'd have been worth it
 
Chaetognath said:
Horatius: why thank you!

As for your request? Dead easy:

R. v. Loosdrecht, 2009 BCPC 196 at para. 39, [2009] 6 C.T.C. 188: FMOTLish person suddenly avoids tax documentation with a SIN (para. 15) and then manufactures T4's with his name in all capitals and without a SIN (para. 27) and insists his T1 tax return is prepared in parallel (para. 27). The fact he adopted this strategy is proof of his intention to evade taxes:

[58] For Mr. Loosdrecht to suddenly determine that through such transparent mechanics as the insistence that the letters of his name be capitalized, refusal of a GST registration number, the refusal to be identified by a social insurance number, the adoption of the title "natural person" or the addition of gobbledegook wording to the attestation in his income tax return, he could thereby lawfully create a parallel existence separate and apart from his responsibilities as a taxpayer, defies any logic and, in particular, is not believable in the context of a person in his circumstances. His conduct amounts to wilful blindness at law.

[59] I agree with the Crown's submission that the law of mistake, that is the mistaken belief held by Mr. Loosdrecht that the Income Tax Act does not apply to him in his capacity of a natural person, is not a defence. I agree with Judge Wingham of this court when he stated in R. v. Turnnir, supra at paragraph 78 the following:

Mistake of law is only available as a defence to tax evasion in very limited circumstances. (R. v. Klundert 2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), (2004), 187 CCC(3d) 417 Ont. CA, leave to appeal to SCC refused, R. v. Kennedy, [2004] BCJ 2588 (BCCA))

A mistaken belief that a statute is invalid or otherwise not applicable to his conduct is a mistake of law which is irrelevant to the fault requirement of tax evasion.​

[60] I find the Crown has proven that the accused possessed the mens rea in making false or deceptive statements in his tax returns, and in wilfully evading or attempting to evade payment of income tax in respect to each of the years from 2001 through 2004 and I find him guilty on all counts.​
Click to expand...



This one is probably the closest, but they all still have wiggle room for Menard to claim they don't apply, mostly in that the people in these cases were still filing tax returns, albeit fraudulent returns.

It may be that there has not yet been a case involving someone who

  1. Refuses to acknowledge he has a SIN
  2. Refuses to file any sort of Tax Return
  3. Stands his ground long enough to end up in court


It looks to me like Menard has found a new twist on this scam. I fully expect it will get slapped down eventually, but so far, there doesn't seem to be a definitive case.
 
Horatius:

"It looks to me like Menard has found a new twist on this scam. I fully expect it will get slapped down eventually, but so far, there doesn't seem to be a definitive case."

I don't think so.

In R. v. Loosdrecht, 2009 BCPC 196 at para. 27 the judge observes the offender did not file a return in 2007. However, at para. 40 he considers the offender's conduct in that year as an aggravating factor.

In R. v. Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67, offender Porisky failed to file a return in 2005-2008, but filed a 'no income' return in 2004 (para. 36). Yet he is convicted of tax evasion for all four years (para. 72). Co-offender Gould never filed a return during the 2004-2008 period (para. 36) and was convicted of tax evasion for all four years (para. 76).

With apologies in advance for a comment that is likely cryptic, I have noted in other message posts that commentators, I believe D'rok in particular, have identified and stressed appellate commentary on what conduct, in general, represents tax evasion. That foundation is applied in the four "SIN" cases that I identified.

That approach may be relevant when playing 'whack-a-mole' with FOTLish schemes.

Chaetognath.
 
Chaetognath said:
Horatius:

"It looks to me like Menard has found a new twist on this scam. I fully expect it will get slapped down eventually, but so far, there doesn't seem to be a definitive case."

I don't think so.

In R. v. Loosdrecht, 2009 BCPC 196 at para. 27 the judge observes the offender did not file a return in 2007. However, at para. 40 he considers the offender's conduct in that year as an aggravating factor.

In R. v. Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67, offender Porisky failed to file a return in 2005-2008, but filed a 'no income' return in 2004 (para. 36). Yet he is convicted of tax evasion for all four years (para. 72). Co-offender Gould never filed a return during the 2004-2008 period (para. 36) and was convicted of tax evasion for all four years (para. 76).

With apologies in advance for a comment that is likely cryptic, I have noted in other message posts that commentators, I believe D'rok in particular, have identified and stressed appellate commentary on what conduct, in general, represents tax evasion. That foundation is applied in the four "SIN" cases that I identified.

That approach may be relevant when playing 'whack-a-mole' with FOTLish schemes.

Chaetognath.
Click to expand...


Have you seen his response to one of these cases as cited by D'Rok? Notice he hinges it all on the fellow using the word "my".

This is the essential problem with trying to argue against the "magic words" theory of law. If you're not using the exact same phraseology as the woo promoter, they entirely dismiss its relevance to their claims. While a reasonable person will look to these decisions, and try to see how they might apply to the new types of claims, the woo promoters look for reasons why they won't apply. Until and unless the courts explicitly smack down their version, they insist that it is entirely correct and legal (and often continue to insist that even after getting smacked down!).

Of course, since court decisions are entirely reactive in nature, and judges are reluctant to discussion hypothetical issues that go beyond the questions before them in the case at hand, we'll always be behind the curve in dealing with these claims. No matter how many times "Theory X" gets shot down, they'll continue to insist that "Theory X+1 is the real deal! Those other decisions have no relevance!"
 
This might be a more relevant case. Tuck v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 418, at para. 7:

According to the Appellant’s submissions, the basis for the challenges contained in these documents and in the Notices of Appeal is that the Appellants never “contractually consented voluntarily to the current taxation schemes attempting to be enforced by the [Respondent] against the Appellant”.[1] Accordingly, in the case of Trueman Tuck, the Appellant did not file income tax returns and his tax liability was assessed under subsection 152(7) of the Income Tax Act. Although Ms. Tuck filed a return, she joins her husband in disputing the constitutionality of the Minister’s assessment powers. The Appellant challenges the assessments on the further grounds that in the Notices of Assessment under the heading “account number” are noted numbers which are their social insurance numbers. The Appellant says they never “asked for” social insurance numbers and accordingly, their “accounts”, and therefore the assessments, are not valid. Finally, he argues that the assessments are without legal effect because in them, his name and that of his wife have been typed in capital letters. When challenged on the essential silliness of this point, the Appellant had the good grace to retreat from, if not completely abandon, that line of argument.
Click to expand...


This seems to be an appeals case, and I haven't been able to find the original. Perhaps people more familiar with these kinds of things could find it, and see if there's more detail?
 
Horatius:

"This seems to be an appeals case, and I haven't been able to find the original. Perhaps people more familiar with these kinds of things could find it, and see if there's more detail?"

I think I can answer that. Tuck is a typical decision of the Tax Court of Canada, and is an appeal from the internal CRA review process. It works like this:

1. a taxpayer is required to self-report their income and calculated tax;

2. the CRA reviews the self-report and issues an "assessment", which is the CRA's calculation of the tax owing. Optionally the CRA may later issue a "re-assessment", which is where the CRA recalculates tax owed on the basis of other information;

3. when a taxpayer receives an assessment or re-assessment the taxpayer has the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the (re-)assessment; that challenge is reviewed internally by the CRA;

4. once the CRA has responded to the challenge the taxpayer has the further option to appeal the (re)-assessment to the Tax Court of Canada; and

5. further appeals of the Tax Court of Canada decision are possible to the Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.​

So, Tuck is actually the first 'court' evaluation of the disputed income tax. The communications between the CRA and Tuck are normally confidential but presumably they are included in the Tuck Tax Court of Canada case file.

I hope that helps.

Chaetognath.
 
Chaetognath said:
So, Tuck is actually the first 'court' evaluation of the disputed income tax. The communications between the CRA and Tuck are normally confidential but presumably they are included in the Tuck Tax Court of Canada case file.

I hope that helps.

Chaetognath.
Click to expand...



Yes, it does help. Alas, it doesn't help us find the details! It's this sort of problem that lets people like FoTLers get so far with their nonsense. The CRA and the courts are set up to give them so much benefit of the doubt, and privacy protection, that it's nearly impossible to find out what really went on, so the next time someone tries the same nonsense, we can't point them to publicly available resources to show it's been tried, and has failed, before.

Of course, no one in their right mind wants to re-engineer the whole system just to save the few people who fall for this nonsense, so we'll probably keep seeing this sort of problem until one of them tries the Full Monty Menardism in his public court appeals.
 
Horatius said:
Yes, it does help. Alas, it doesn't help us find the details! It's this sort of problem that lets people like FoTLers get so far with their nonsense. The CRA and the courts are set up to give them so much benefit of the doubt, and privacy protection, that it's nearly impossible to find out what really went on, so the next time someone tries the same nonsense, we can't point them to publicly available resources to show it's been tried, and has failed, before.

Of course, no one in their right mind wants to re-engineer the whole system just to save the few people who fall for this nonsense, so we'll probably keep seeing this sort of problem until one of them tries the Full Monty Menardism in his public court appeals.
Click to expand...

Well, do you know anyone at CRA who does audits? If ol' Rob were sent a demand to file returns for the past few years, I'm sure he would fight his case all the way to the SCC [/sarcasm].
 
Jon. said:
Well, do you know anyone at CRA who does audits? If ol' Rob were sent a demand to file returns for the past few years, I'm sure he would fight his case all the way to the SCC [/sarcasm].
Click to expand...



Well, here's the wonderful thing about privacy laws. Imagine if I were to try to play the "FoTL Guru" role. I'd love to have an official letter from the CRA that says I have no tax owing, to show to "skeptics" to shut them up.

And I could get a perfectly legitimate letter such as that by:

  1. Attracting the attention of the CRA by posting enough crap that people start to report me...
  2. ....and then paying all my taxes


After being audited, I request an official confirmation that there is no tax owing, then simply claim there's no tax owing because they accepted my FoTL nonsense. Privacy laws would preclude the CRA from gainsaying me, as to do so would illegally publish my tax records.

Winning!
 
Jon.:

"Well, do you know anyone at CRA who does audits? If ol' Rob were sent a demand to file returns for the past few years, I'm sure he would fight his case all the way to the SCC [/sarcasm]."

Funny you should mention that. The CRA encourages third parties to report known or suspected tax evasion. If you do a 'Google' search with:

CRA informant leads program​

the top two responses are the general 'tip' webpage, and a page that explains what kinds of information are most helpful for the CRA when tracking tax evasion. Anonymous leads are welcome.

It occurs to me that the Informant Leads Program would probably be equally interested in receiving information on tax fraud and counseling tax fraud and evasion, as well as good ol' fashioned tax evasion.

And coincidentally, the public now has fairly detailed indications from the courts on what kind of conduct represents counseling tax fraud and evasion: R. v. Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67 at paras. 83-125.

At para. 112 Justice Myers explains that stating an legally incorrect interpretation of Canadian tax law is not an offense, and neither is expressing a political opinion in relation to income tax and taxation. What is subject to criminal sanction are steps that encourage a person to not pay tax:

[113] To paraphrase the test in Sharpe, does The Canadian Illusion send the message that the Paradigm view should be followed, or does it merely state a valueless legal opinion or a legitimate political viewpoint? I think it is the former: it exhorts and goads people to free themselves from the shackles of “serfdom” and “slavery” supposedly imposed by the income tax system. It instructs people to do this by exercising the “forgotten option” of structuring their arrangements as so-called natural persons and thereby consider their income as nil. Those who do not do this have chosen the “Common Option for the Disadvantaged”. Paradigm and Mr. Porisky offer further education, mentoring and counselling to achieve this result. The Canadian Illusion does not urge people to act by lobbying for a change in the tax system; rather, it encourages them to illegally avoid the system altogether. The audience in “The Tax Game” DVD is urged to “quit working for the taxpayer” – namely, in their capacity as a natural person, to not pay taxes.​

Counseling tax evasion occurs when an objective observer would conclude that they are urged to adopt the accused's scheme, and declare legally incorrect tax: paras. 114-115.

Any disclaimer to that intent has no effect: paras. 117-122.

Intent is irrelevant (para. 122-124), though in this case intent was beyond question (para. 124).

As a casual observer, it seems to me that Mr. Menard and Mr. Porisky are only different in the details of their schemes, and not their overall actions.

I wonder if the RCMP has asked the CBC for a copy of its interview with Mr. Menard?

Chaetognath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom