The point has been addressed long ago. I gave references to the relevant legislation about SINs. Many others have given references to successful prosecutions of FOTL tax evaders by the CRA. The fact that you currently get away with criminal behaviour does not mean you will continue to do so. Although, as I have also already said, the CRA generally doesn't concern itself with marginal tax evasion in the fringes of the cash economy. I've been there myself.
AFAIK you haven't been running a tax evasion scheme where you teach others how to evade taxes through some ******** FOTL system. But you do flirt with this by making statements on national television like "wages aren't income" and by proclaiming yourself not liable for income tax.
It is these activities that may attract the attention of the CRA.
During our interview she delved into that aspect considerably, then did not mention it at all in her report, and if I was wrong, it would have been a big boon to her story. (Freemen are creating their own force of peace officers and claim the right to hold cops accountable to the law!) Why would she fail to mention that, if it was an unlawful stance?
Plus the fact that in the last couple of weeks, 3 people who are members of 3CPO were invited to interviews with federal investigators with the RCMP, all of whom afterward acknowledged the peace officer status and peaceful lawful actions of our officers.
Did you even bother watching the clip, and pay attention to her body language at the end of the clip? Did you hear her words where she stated MANY police do not feel I am a violent threat? If they do accept that I am a peace officer, would that not justify their position?
(This is where you will try to latch on to 'body language' and claim I am using it alone as 'proof' when all I am doing is using it as part of the evidence supporting my deductions.)
Now how about you tell me WHY you think she did not mention it?
OK, I understand now. I suppose as long as you don't use any of the amenities of the country (roads, health care, public spaces and such) you should not have to pay.
It is my understanding that paying Income Tax is not required to use those things. When was the last time you were asked for a SIN in order to use public spaces? The only things I have to give up, are those things which require a SIN to access. None of those require one.
Welfare, CPP, EI. Those things I gave up. Others I still have a right to. The evidence for that is I still use them, and no one has ever demanded a SIN from me to do so.
The point has been addressed long ago. I gave references to the relevant legislation about SINs. Many others have given references to successful prosecutions of FOTL tax evaders by the CRA. The fact that you currently get away with criminal behaviour does not mean you will continue to do so. Although, as I have also already said, the CRA generally doesn't concern itself with marginal tax evasion in the fringes of the cash economy. I've been there myself.
AFAIK you haven't been running a tax evasion scheme where you teach others how to evade taxes through some ******** FOTL system. But you do flirt with this by making statements on national television like "wages aren't income" and by proclaiming yourself not liable for income tax.
It is these activities that may attract the attention of the CRA.
Given the overall tone of the piece, I think it is safe to say it is NOT because she considers your claims to be legitimate. More than that would be pure speculation, despite your desire to spin some victory out of the whole sorry thing.
Now why don't you tell us why you leave a trail of death threats against various government and law enforcement officials all over the internet?
For the record, in my discussions with her producer, I said that I didn't think FOTLers as a whole are violent. I simply think that you are eventually going to push some unbalanced soul into a violent reaction to something benign like a traffic stop. You have already pushed several unbalanced souls into jail.
Yes you do. I cited the specific provision of the relevant legislation that shows that you do. Like every other bit of statutory law, the government and the courts don't care in the least whether or not you consent to it.
Yes you do. I cited the specific provision of the relevant legislation that shows that you do. Like every other bit of statutory law, the government and the courts don't care in the least whether or not you consent to it.
I should also point out that Chaetognath was kind enough in another thread to cite a case where an FOTL tax evader tried to abandon his SIN.
"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"."
Given the overall tone of the piece, I think it is safe to say it is NOT because she considers your claims to be legitimate. More than that would be pure speculation, despite your desire to spin some victory out of the whole sorry thing.
Now why don't you tell us why you leave a trail of death threats against various government and law enforcement officials all over the internet?
For the record, in my discussions with her producer, I said that I didn't think FOTLers as a whole are violent. I simply think that you are eventually going to push some unbalanced soul into a violent reaction to something benign like a traffic stop. You have already pushed several unbalanced souls into jail.
If she did not at least consider that my claims were legitimate, then tell us why did she not even mention them?
PUSH PEOPLE? Wow... sharing ideas and beliefs that are not your own is to you, pushing people, right? IS that what you are saying? Care to share how you think I pushed people, you know, with my words?
Yes you do. I cited the specific provision of the relevant legislation that shows that you do. Like every other bit of statutory law, the government and the courts don't care in the least whether or not you consent to it.
I should also point out that Chaetognath was kind enough in another thread to cite a case where an FOTL tax evader tried to abandon his SIN.
"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"."
And as peaceful and well mannered as we can be, wake our ire and you will pay very dearly...You will be made to pay. When I say you will pay, I do mean very dearly indeed.
Are you aware this means that if you try taking someones unregistered automobile with your hand on your gun, and that automobile is held under a claim of right, that you can be lawfully shot and killed? http://worldfreemansociety.org/Peppermint+Patty+Letter
PUSH PEOPLE? Wow... sharing ideas and beliefs that are not your own is to you, pushing people, right? IS that what you are saying? Care to share how you think I pushed people, you know, with my words?
Oh please. Your whole routine is based around convincing people that your claims are true. You hold seminars, self-publish and sell study materials - you teach. And when people act on your teachings they suffer.
Take some goddamn responsibility for your actions. Just for *********** once.
So now you speak confidently of what I imagine? Are you qualified to provide a psychological evaluation of those whom you have never met? Are you a psychic who knows what others imagine?
Rob, by your standards, not mine, the assessment of your personality given here is accepted unless you can refute it.
Indeed you have made the laughable claim that you have been tested for a narcissistic personality disorder and have passed the test. Setting aside the reality that there is no "test" for narcissistic personality disorders you should be able to produce your results and leave azzthom and myself with egg on our faces.
. . .in the last couple of weeks, 3 people who are members of 3CPO were invited to interviews with federal investigators with the RCMP, all of whom afterward acknowledged the peace officer status and peaceful lawful actions of our officers.
I should also point out that Chaetognath was kind enough in another thread to cite a case where an FOTL tax evader tried to abandon his SIN.
"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"."
Way back in post #4861 of this thread I pointed out to Rob this decision as well as R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118, the relevant bits of which are as follows:
[13] Mr. Pinno further adopted all of the contents of the documents filed as exhibits on his behalf, which help explain these strange pronouncements provided to the court. For example, exhibit D2, headed Constructive Notice reads, inter alia:
"I have recently learned that I, a natural person of commoner status, am not a "person" included in the Income Tax Act of Canada who is subject to the income tax. I further learned that I have been deceptively induced by Revenue Canada's propaganda into making a supposed contract by filing an income tax return, thus changing my status to "taxpayer" which makes me subject to the income tax by that supposed contract.
I hereby revoke and void any such supposed or assumed contract, past, present and future; and, hereby declare my status as a natural person and a commoner.
I hereby revoke and forbid any usage of my Social Insurance number as a taxpayer number; and, void any contract such past usage of it as a taxpayer number may have implied.
...
[21] The defendant asserts further that he has no contractual arrangements with the CCRA to file income tax returns. As indicated, the requirement to file income tax returns however is statutory. This means compelled by law to do so by reason of a statute passed by (in this case) the federal parliament of Canada. There is no contractual element to it. Citizens are required to obey such laws whether they agree to do so or not and in fact, whether they are even aware of such law or not. By contrast, one can enter into a contract to do certain acts which binds the individual by reason only of his or her agreement to do so. Statutes (laws passed by governments) don't operate on the principle of mutual agreement however. If stopped for speeding or caught breaking into someone's residence, the guilt of the accused does not depend on whether it can be proven he or she agreed to be subject to such law.
[24] I have taken some effort to deal with all positions advanced by the accused to ensure him that he has been given full answer and defence to the within charges. I have also done so for the sake of clarity for those who would follow and raise similar arguments before the court on such charges of failing to file personal income tax returns. It is indeed unfortunate that otherwise law-abiding citizens can be influenced and manipulated in such fashion. The defendant freely acknowledged in his evidence and argument that the material presented to the court "came from higher up the chain." It is obvious that certain groups and organizations peddle such ideas, even apparently for a profit at seminars and through publications, striking responsive chords in those who believe such information legitimizes what in fact is nothing less than civil disobedience. Most assuredly, few people, if any, enjoy paying personal income tax and most would have strong, valid opinions as to how such tax revenue should be allocated. Such opinions must be expressed democratically through our elected institutions, not by buying into fallacious and ill-conceived dogma which results only in criminal sanction - not for those of course who profess it, but for those who act upon it. Such is the unfortunate result here for Mr. Pinno.
The sad truth is that, no matter how clearly devastating such decisions are to Rob's argument, he will always attempt to distinguish them, even on the most irrelevant ground, regardless of whether such ground was even mentioned by the court, let alone discussed in a meaningful way.
I'll show you three. There are many more, which I can't be bothered to track down.
She didn't mention most of your beliefs. So what?
Oh please. Your whole routine is based around convincing people that your claims are true. You hold seminars, self-publish and sell study materials - you teach. And when people act on your teachings they suffer.
Take some goddamn responsibility for your actions. Just for *********** once.
Unfortunately for you, not a single one of those is a threat to kill. Do you see the word DEATH? Do you see a threat to kill? THOUGHT NOT. FAIL FOR YOU.
I do not seek (nor have I ever done so) to convince people my claims or beliefs are true. I ask they do their own due diligence and form their own opinions. You on the other had seek to convince them their beliefs are meaningless, because there are people playing the role of judge, or cop, or government agent, whose beliefs do not mesh, and THEY can harm them, so they should abandon their beliefs, lest they suffer at the hands of those who have different beliefs.
So, how you going to get me to associate with a specific number? Care to answer that? Guess not eh? Coward that you are...
People do not act on my teachings. They act on their beliefs. If they act on ANYONES teachings, they are not free. If they act on their beliefs, they can be. If they can defend those beliefs.
Still wondering how YOU or your representatives will get me to associate with a number against my own will.... gonna at least TRY to address that, or will you continue to ignore that and simply try to attack me?
Now as for what the other poster stated... do you honestly expect me to accept as truth what was said by them on an internet forum, whilst they hide their true identity, and change my beliefs due only to that? Seriously?
Edited by kmortis:
Removed personal comment
And she pointed to that! Now change how you think!
That is essentially your argument. People who refuse to identify themselves, and hide behind internet anonymity, will not be changing my beliefs. I do not follow cowards. And those who refuse to identify, are cowards.
Do not alter other usernames.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: kmortis
So now we are back at our original point.
How will YOU or your representatives or government get me to associate with a number and accept it as my own, against my own will?
Unfortunately for you, not a single one of those is a threat to kill. Do you see the word DEATH? Do you see a threat to kill? THOUGHT NOT. FAIL FOR YOU.
Way back in post #4861 of this thread I pointed out to Rob this decision as well as R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118, the relevant bits of which are as follows:
The sad truth is that, no matter how clearly devastating such decisions are to Rob's argument, he will always attempt to distinguish them, even on the most irrelevant ground, regardless of whether such ground was even mentioned by the court, let alone discussed in a meaningful way.
my Social Insurance Number my Social Insurance Number
Did he or did he not claim to HAVE a Social Insurance Number?
Did he refer to it as 'my social insurance number?
I hereby revoke and forbid any usage of my Social Insurance number as a taxpayer number; and, void any contract such past usage of it as a taxpayer number may have implied.
KEY POINT:
I hereby revoke and forbid any usage of my Social Insurance number as a taxpayer number; and, void any contract such past usage of it as a taxpayer number may have implied.
He referred to a SIN as HIS.
And he paid for it.
I claim I do not have one, and do not refer to any such number as 'MY SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER.
God the level of stupidity here, by people who claim to be able to read is astounding.
Just answer this: DID HE REFER TO A SIN AS IS NUMBER? YES or NO?
If yes you see where he messed up.
He claimed a number as his own.
I do not.
So different story, right?
Sol, either you can see he referred to a SIN as his, or you cannot. Can you?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
