people rejected the constitution

[no queenslave]

http://calson.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Byf...17/1852879.html

Something on the subject not your dreams and propaganda.

government supporters want the corrupt government to continue because they arev part of the corruption.

Edited November 10, 2007 by no queenslave

[jbg]

http://calson.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Byf...17/1852879.html

Something on the subject not your dreams and propaganda.

government supporters want the corrupt government to continue because they arev part of the corruption.

Bad link.

[no queenslave]

that must be in your court; where you are the judge. You post that you have a direct connection to the queen and when asked for you to get some information from her court you post nothing but garbage.; proving you are just like your post.

[no queenslave]

Of course he will. I mean, why should you offer anything helpful here.

You should take a look at Court case ci 04-01-18673. That proves that judges are not corrupt. Ask your local crazy person for a link if you want. I am sure he or she will provide you with one.

I thought i was asking the local crazy person.

[bk59]

that must be in your court; where you are the judge. You post that you have a direct connection to the queen and when asked for you to get some information from her court you post nothing but garbage.; proving you are just like your post.

Oh yes. The Queen and I are best buds. We go for beers every Wednesday.

Are you ever going to produce this case of yours? Or even tell us what this case of yours is about? If it is so easy to find, why can't you give it to us? Or even tell us the actual name of the case?

[bk59]

no queenslave, what you wrote in post #128 may be the most intelligent thing you have ever written on this board. Not the quoted part. The stuff not in quotes.

[no queenslave]

Bad link.

i tried to modify it 4 times but someon keeps changing it - it was posted as Byfield not By...

[no queenslave]

no queenslave, what you wrote in post #128 may be the most intelligent thing you have ever written on this board. Not the quoted part. The stuff not in quotes.

and the most important post you wrote"IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY"

thanks.

[bk59]

and the most important post you wrote"IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY"

thanks.

I'd like to believe this means that you're learning. That this means you have realized that the government has the authority to raise money through income taxes. Authority that it can exercise through legislation. Authority that has been challenged in court, and proven legitimate. Sadly I have the feeling that this is not the case.

[no queenslave]

I'd like to believe this means that you're learning. That this means you have realized that the government has the authority to raise money through income taxes. Authority that it can exercise through legislation. Authority that has been challenged in court, and proven legitimate. Sadly I have the feeling that this is not the case.

What happened to your law that it was criminal to commit or assist abortion? How many times was it proven to be the law? what happened to that law?

[bk59]

What happened to your law that it was criminal to commit or assist abortion? How many times was it proven to be the law? what happened to that law?

You want to talk abortion now? OK, how many times was it proven to be the law? What did happen to that law?

If you want to make a point then make it. Random questions are not helping your "argument".

[no queenslave]

Why do people go to traffic court when their is a law against speeding ? Who's job is it to prove someone was speeding? Just because the speeding law has been upheld does it mean no more chance to challenge a speeding ticket?.

Maybe you would argue it is not a court case that determined you were speeding ;it was a valid law? What a pathetic argument you have .

[no queenslave]

You want to talk abortion now? OK, how many times was it proven to be the law? What did happen to that law?

If you want to make a point then make it. Random questions are not helping your "argument".

People have the right to challenge any government law ; and with a fair trial laws can be found to be without law. Coming up with pathetic answers is showing how little you know.

[bk59]

People have the right to challenge any government law ; and with a fair trial laws can be found to be without law. Coming up with pathetic answers is showing how little you know.

Trying to say the government does not have the authority to do something when it has been proven over and over and over again is pathetic. And shows how little you know. People did have the right to challenge that law. They did challenge it. There was a fair trial. They lost. Move on.

Why do people go to traffic court when their is a law against speeding ? Who's job is it to prove someone was speeding? Just because the speeding law has been upheld does it mean no more chance to challenge a speeding ticket?.

Maybe you would argue it is not a court case that determined you were speeding ;it was a valid law? What a pathetic argument you have .

They go to traffic court to try to weasel out of the fine they have to pay. Feel free to take your individual case to court. Show up at your local Canada Revenue office and tell them that you do not pay taxes. And when you go to court you can try to weasel your way out of your responsibility.

If you want to ask what case proves that you as an individual have to pay taxes the simple answer is: follow my instructions above. But honestly, stop being stupid. The law is valid. Every Canadian does not have to go to court every single year just so that the court can tell them that yes, the law applies to you too.

[no queenslave]

Trying to say the government does not have the authority to do something when it has been proven over and over and over again is pathetic. And shows how little you know. People did have the right to challenge that law. They did challenge it. There was a fair trial. They lost. Move on.

They go to traffic court to try to weasel out of the fine they have to pay. Feel free to take your individual case to court. Show up at your local Canada Revenue office and tell them that you do not pay taxes. And when you go to court you can try to weasel your way out of your responsibility.

If you want to ask what case proves that you as an individual have to pay taxes the simple answer is: follow my instructions above. But honestly, stop being stupid. The law is valid. Every Canadian does not have to go to court every single year just so that the court can tell them that yes, the law applies to you too.

how many times have you posted such garbage ?You moved on and what are you doing? Where is you friend who posted the government looses the vast majority of tax court cases? Yes tax court judge wanabe. JUst like all tax court judges. And lawyers who want to be judges. You love a dictator and support dictatorship; no court case required.

IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY - Stop being stupid, is that what you use in court?

How many times does a traffic cop have to go to court if the person does not agree with a ticket- s?. It is not a court case that determined you owed the money just the law. It is the government that weaseled out of it's responsibility to provide a fair trial or any trial at all.. 'If you can't post something respectful why post at all? What forum rule allows you you to call me being stupid? So what is the purpose of tax court IF as you say " IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY" ? WHAT MONEY ?HOW MUCH MONEY?

Edited November 10, 2007 by no queenslave

[no queenslave]

IS the constitution the law of Canada? If it is then why does not the government have to obey it ? Does it not require a person to be innocent till proven guilty? Does it not require a fair trial?

Does it not require everybody to be equal under the law? Does it not protect against discrimination? Why am I not treated as innocent before declared guilty by a trial ?Why does the courts and politicians say we have a constitution and the law of the country and then not obey it?

Is it not the right of everyone to challenge any law of the government?

[bk59]

how many times have you posted such garbage ?You moved on and what are you doing? Where is you friend who posted the government looses the vast majority of tax court cases? Yes tax court judge wanabe. JUst like all tax court judges. And lawyers who want to be judges. You love a dictator and support dictatorship; no court case required.

IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY - Stop being stupid, is that what you use in court?

How many times does a traffic cop have to go to court if the person does not agree with a ticket- s?. It is not a court case that determined you owed the money just the law. It is the government that weaseled out of it's responsibility to provide a fair trial or any trial at all.. 'If you can't post something respectful why post at all? What forum rule allows you you to call me being stupid? So what is the purpose of tax court IF as you say " IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY" ? WHAT MONEY ?HOW MUCH MONEY?

The law determines that you owe money. How much is determined by your personal situation filed in your tax return. If the amount is in dispute, you go to court. And the court will determine how much you owe. See how easy that is?

[bk59]

IS the constitution the law of Canada?

Yes

If it is then why does not the government have to obey it ? Does it not require a person to be innocent till proven guilty? Does it not require a fair trial?

Does it not require everybody to be equal under the law? Does it not protect against discrimination?

The government does have to obey it. Yes to all of the rest.

Why am I not treated as innocent before declared guilty by a trial ?Why does the courts and politicians say we have a constitution and the law of the country and then not obey it?

Is it not the right of everyone to challenge any law of the government?

You are treated as innocent until proven guilty. Courts do obey the law of the country. Show me where they have not.

Everyone can challenge any law of the government. But once that law has been challenged, then it is valid. If someone else tries to challenge the same law, on the same grounds, the court will toss out your case. Why? Because that question has already been answered. They aren't going to waste everyone's time answering the same question in the same way.

[jbg]

Yes

The government does have to obey it. Yes to all of the rest.

You are treated as innocent until proven guilty. Courts do obey the law of the country. Show me where they have not.

What Queenie is getting at is that (at least in the US) certain tax proceedings do not indluge the presumption of innocence. Those are civil in nature, and determine which side prevails by a preponderance of the evidence. The burdens of proof depend on the specifics of the matter. If Queenie, for example, didn't file returns for 20 years he'd enjoy a presumption of innocence in the criminal phase of the case, but none in the civil collection side.

Everyone can challenge any law of the government. But once that law has been challenged, and is found valid then it is valid. If someone else tries to challenge the same law, on the same grounds, the court will toss out your case. Why? Because that question has already been answered. They aren't going to waste everyone's time answering the same question in the same way.

BK, your statemnt, with the underlined inserted language is valid. The term of art for precedent being binding is stare decisis. As to proceedings between individuals being binding so they don't get tried over and over, the term is res judicata or, in the US, claim preclusion. There is also the related doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prohibiting one who has lost a matter with person "A" from relitigating the same issue with person "B".

[bk59]

What Queenie is getting at is that (at least in the US) certain tax proceedings do not indluge the presumption of innocence. Those are civil in nature, and determine which side prevails by a preponderance of the evidence. The burdens of proof depend on the specifics of the matter. If Queenie, for example, didn't file returns for 20 years he'd enjoy a presumption of innocence in the criminal phase of the case, but none in the civil collection side.

True. I'm not sure that no queenslave will see that distinction though.

BK, your statemnt, with the underlined inserted language is valid.

Thank you for the correction. That is indeed what I meant. Once a law has been challenged and found valid, it cannot be challenged in the same way again.

I have avoided using phrases like stare decisis simply because I have doubts that no queenslave will accept that type of formal language.

[jbg]

True. I'm not sure that no queenslave will see that distinction though.

Does Canada have the same rules as the US on the civil/criminal distinction?

Thank you for the correction. That is indeed what I meant. Once a law has been challenged and found valid, it cannot be challenged in the same way again.

I have avoided using phrases like stare decisis simply because I have doubts that no queenslave will accept that type of formal language.

Do Canadian courts have similar doctrines? I am only licensed in New York State courts and all Federal Courts in New York, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (the Appeals Court only, covering Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio), so I really can't give an opinion on Canadian law. I'm wondering, given the extreme differences between our countries, if there are similar doctrines.

[bk59]

Does Canada have the same rules as the US on the civil/criminal distinction?

I'm not entirely sure I can answer the question, but there are definitely distinctions between civil & criminal. In criminal you will definitely see the same presumption of innocence. In civil, the burden of proof would probably be case specific. My guess is that the crown would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the person had certain income, etc. that if true would lead to owing $X. Then the individual could attempt to prove, again on the balance of probabilities, that the information was incorrect and that they should only owe $Y. That is just my guess though.

Do Canadian courts have similar doctrines? I am only licensed in New York State courts and all Federal Courts in New York, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (the Appeals Court only, covering Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio), so I really can't give an opinion on Canadian law. I'm wondering, given the extreme differences between our countries, if there are similar doctrines.

Certainly stare decisis is the cornerstone of all common law systems (I think). And would be the doctrine that applies in this case. No judge is going to attempt to overrule the Supreme Court of Canada when nothing about the situation has changed. They would get appealed so fast it wouldn't even be funny.

Res judicata is certainly a doctrine in Canada, but at this point I couldn't really tell you the ins and outs of it. At its basic level I do believe that it prevents individuals from relitigating the same issues. As with many things law, the specifics of how & when you can plead res judicata get a bit more complicated.

[jbg]

Res judicata is certainly a doctrine in Canada, but at this point I couldn't really tell you the ins and outs of it. At its basic level I do believe that it prevents individuals from relitigating the same issues. As with many things law, the specifics of how & when you can plead res judicata get a bit more complicated.

I tend to suspect that most English-speaking lands have basic similarities in law, even for countries as sharply different as the US and Canada.

[no queenslave]

A corrupt dictatorship writing it's own constitution and appointing judges who are just as corrupt; as in Canada is not a democracy. In a democracy the people are sovereign and write their own constitution and ratify it. The only way a government in a democracy gets its power to govern is by a constitution ratified by the people , not some foreign queen..

Where is the law of equality? Which was the first court case that said federal income tax was ultra vires ? What changed - appointed corrupt judges.

IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY quote by bk 59

[old_bold&cold]

I am getting really tired of all this stuff, but since I was the one who said that the majority of tax court cases are lost. I will wade in on this from my own experience. When Rev Can comes and asks you to prove certain things, it is because they have the power where the reverse onus of most of our legal system is you are innocent until proven guilty. They will as they did in my case take every penny that ever went from any of my 3 bank accounts and say they all were income and denied every expense that I ever made. It was now up to me to show that much of this was transfers from one bank to another etc. If there were any money added to it or deducted from it in any way, it was then said to be new and was income. All expenses were denied and even my accountants fees were questioned and they ask for item by item charges for everythignthe accountant ever did for me. In other words I was guilty and had to prove myself inncent. They started out claiming millions in unclaimed income, and after the first of 4.5 years we got them down to $500,000.00 and over the next 3.5 years again down to $220,000.00. My legal fees were over $60,000.00 and I did not have any assets left to be attached, so just before going into court, I would have had to pay another $20,000.00 to the lawyers and even if I won everything I would not even get my attorney costs back. So I did what I can only assume they were trying to do in the first place and that was to bankrupt me. So since I was already retired and on an insurance pension that they can not touch, that was my way out, to put an end to it. Yes it was not in any way ever a criminal thing, but rather a request by the RCMP to Rev Can made 5years earlier. One of my friends is the IT manager at Rev Can and he had kept a copy of the request for me in a safe place. The problem being to sue the RCMP for doing this illegal act costs way more then most could ever hope to get in return. So yes they get away with it. But one day maybe it will be made a lot easier to get my justice.

So by the very fact that they started looking for over 2.5 million and in the end we were arguing over $220,000.00 and I had reciepts and letters testifying to these as being expenses, etc.. Alos thye had narrowed the scope of their audit down to just 2 years from 5 years, also because they knew they could not win them. That to me is winning, yet if you look at the stats it would be called a loss.

When it comes to the Taxation and the courts for it, you are guilty until proven innocent and when you win they willk re-imbrse your cost etc but no legal fees and the other huge costs associated with these cases. Even when you win you lose. I hold the RCMP responsible for this and the REV Can special investigations also responsible. If they all died horribly painful deaths, I would celebrate long and hard.

No one should ever be made to go thru that kind of thing, and if ever there would be a reason for growing domestic terrorism this kind of thing could easily be the point of ignition. I am or at least was a pretty reasonable guy when all things are considered, but I will never forget exactly what the goverment had allowed to be done to me and also many others. I am surprised that no one has not broken down and gone on a rampage in the offices of these agencies. But I guess time will probably make that come true, some where down the line.

So do not ever believe that tax laws are in any way the same as criminal law. You are guilty until proven innocent and remember they have a little program called Rappi or the like, that will pull up every purchase or money transfer you ever made no matter where in the world. They told me on a day by day basis what I ate and where I ate it in Europe for the 30 days I was there. I now try never to use my credit cards or atm at all, as this will all be turned against you when they do an audit. The hate when you pay cash, becuse they can not track that yet.