Thanks to Kaz and Jim, we have this wonderful document to read and
contribute to. Let us know your thoughts and additions to the base of
knowledge should you have anything to add.
If not, print and save as a reference piece for future discussions.
_______________________________________________________________
Subject: Britain our Enemy. The Criminal Activity of the British Crown
and BAR Association in North America.
Crimes against Humanity. Will the real criminals please stand up?
Is the British 'Crown' and the BAR Association the largest Organized
Crime Syndicate in North America and a criminal conspiracy against our
people?
North America has 5% of the population of the world, yet has 25% of the
world's incarcerated prisoners and 75% of the world's lawyers. Are North
American's just naturally given to criminal behaviour or are our court
systems being used in treasonous actions by a handful of traitors that
are the lapdogs of a British Crown that seeks to enslave us all?
Is it possible that most of the people we look up to in society and have
placed into positions of trust, routinely lie to us, believe we are
stupid for being so easily sucked in and would prefer us to remain
dumbed down so they can steal from us without us knowing how they are
doing it?
Would it be possible for a Bank to print phony money, buy up all of our
Judges, Lawyers and Politicians and then sucker in a bunch of donut
dunkin' armed thugs, that are supposed to be defending Justice, to
commit crimes against humanity under the guise of 'law' while Justice
sits blindfolded on the steps of the courthouse?
What would you do if you found out that nearly all of the history you
had been taught about your country in your school system was a lie?
What would you do if you found out that the Bankers, Politicians,
Judges, Lawyers and Police were part of a criminal conspiracy and in
effect the biggest criminals in your country?
What would you do if you found out that the Common Law Courts and the
Law of the Land in North America had been overthrown by an 'Admiralty
Law' Court that had extended its jurisdiction beyond its lawful
boundaries and which is in reality a privately owned 'legal' (but
unlawful) system that is designed only to rob you under the guise and
colour of law?
What would you do if you found out that this Banker run Criminal
Organization had caused three of the greatest crimes against humanity in
North America in the last century; The First World War, The Great
Depression and The Second World War, solely for their own financial
benefit?
What would you do if you found out that this same Criminal Organization
is even now planning to sacrifice your families on the altar of their
deceit for their financial benefit yet one more time?
What would you do if you learned that you are not a free man that lived
in the 'land of the free and the home of the brave' or in 'the true
north strong and free', but were merely a slave on a British Ship?
Well now you get to find out what you will do, because after reading the
following paper, that will be totally up to you. Don't simply shrug your
shoulders and say "yeah well, what ya gonna do?" or "maybe someone
should do something about it", because that is exactly how we arrived
here in the first place. Believe it or not, it is up to each and every
one of us to do our part. You are a someone and you ALONE can do
something about it. So what is it going to be? Are you going to merely
pay lip service to a higher ideal and be part of the problem, or are you
going to be a responsible adult and patriotic citizen of your own
country and stand up for what is morally and ethically correct?
Of course, the donut dunkers don't care about our rights as long as they
get their pay cheque. They don't care if they are the traitorous,
condescending, anal retentive, swollen headed, little dupes supporting
the treasonous actions of a foreign power as long as they get their pay
cheque, a bang bang toy, some pretty lights and a siren to play with. In
reality, they don't get paid off like the Judges, Lawyers and
Politicians, so most don't really know that they are being used as
unwitting pawns. They are taught not to think about what they are doing
and merely told to tell their victims; "tell it to the Judge", never
realizing that the judge knows full well he is not presiding over a
lawful court, but a private law merchant court run by the Bank of
England.
Of course the Judges and Lawyers don't care as long as they have a
'legal license to steal' issued by the privately owned British
Accreditation Regency franchise run by the Inns of Court of London. They
like to say they live in a 'dog eat dog' world, but they are in reality
'wolves eating sheep'.
Of course the Politicians don't care as long as they get to live high
off the hog and have ostentatious British titles like 'Right Honourable'
attached to their monikers.
And don't expect ANY BUREAUCRAT in your country to stand up and
represent you, because if they had done so, we would not be in this
mess. Bureaucrats are supported solely by your tax dollars and don't
care what they have to do to make a living. How many times have you
dealt with the snotty, lazy little louts in a government office looking
down their noses at you, the person paying their wages, and saying "Well
I am just following orders and there is nothing I can do about it?"
And do the Bankers care? Well, Global Bankers are the ones running this
system. They always win. Every year they post record profits and that is
all they care about. If you think they are lending you 'their money',
think again. The debts they create are created out of nothing. In
Canada, this debt now amounts to $670 Billion dollars of which 97% is
interest. Why aren't these people in jail?
Read on and find out how 'our heroes' sell us out to a foreign power
that uses our government and judicial machinery to commit theft, fraud,
coercion, torture, slavery and various other crimes against humanity. Or
you act like most Canadians and Americans and use your brain as nothing
more than a piece of Styrofoam to keep your head from collapsing. Either
way, you are going to pay a high price. But only your own actions will
dictate whether the outcome will end with you being a FREE MAN or a
SLAVE.
Contract Law by Kaz Crischuk
The following discussion will look at the elements of a contract in
order to determine whether Federal and/or Provincial income tax returns
could be construed as contracts. I'll then review what grounds one can
use in invalidating (negating) a contract with direct application as to
whether one can invalidate an income tax return.
The groundwork may seem lengthy to some people but it is vital that you
have as much information as you may need in order to make an informed
decision whether, in your own mind, you may build a case for
invalidating a current tax return and, more importantly, all future tax
returns.
Roads to discovery, especially when dealing with self-liberation, are
often hazardous, if not tortuous, but they cannot be travelled without
commitment, struggle and with a clear goal in mind. Bear with me. I'm
certain you'll find it interesting even if you do nothing more than just
read this material.
Characteristics of a Contract
Contracts may be classified by their inherent characteristics:
1) Formal or Simple (Informal) - A Formal contract is a written, signed
and sealed promise enforceable in law. A Simple contract does not
require a seal and can be a verbal (parol) contract or a written
contract without a seal. See below for the discussion of a sealed
contract.
2) Express or Implied (Quasi) - A Quasi (as if) Contract is an
obligation to do something imposed upon someone by statute law but which
bears the force of a contract (driver's licence, marriage licence,
fishing licence, Income Tax Act, Workers' Compensation Act, etc. An
Express contract is one that has all the elements of a contract; both
parties know that it is a contract, openly agree by their signatures to
abide by the terms and is usually called an Agreement or Contract on its
face.
3) Bilateral or Unilateral - A bilateral contract is one that is to be
performed by each party at some future time. It involves two promises,
one from each party to the contract. A unilateral contract is a promise
for an act and the acceptance by each party to the performance of the
objectives therein set out. It is not a promise to perform any of the
acts which constitute the
Objective(s). The question of whether a contract is based on a promise
or is based on the fulfilling of an obligation has been much debated
over the decades. I hold the view that a contract is based on a promise
to perform and any non-compliance of the terms of the contract is a
breach of a promise not an unfulfilled obligation.
4) Valid, Voidable, or Unenforceable - A valid contract is one which is
legal, all the terms are acceptable by all parties and which is
enforceable against one or more of the signatories to it. An
unenforceable contract is one where the terms are so vague that neither
party would be able to perform on the terms.
A voidable contract s one that a court may set aside for some reason at
the request of the parties. A void contract, on the other hand, cannot
be enforced by either part and is void for some structural or legal
reason.
Whenever a right has been surrendered, or a promise to surrender a right
by one party has been made at the request of another party, that promise
then becomes unenforceable.
Elements of a Contract
The Law of Contracts (as developed and evolved over centuries by usage
and Court decisions) has existed since time immemorial in organized
societies as a means of conducting business. Its basis is in a promise,
an expectation between two or more parties as to what the goals are of
the contract and the terms and obligations placed on the parties. Just
as the safety of people and property depends upon consistent rules of
civil and criminal law, security and stability of the business world
depends upon rules of Contract Law.
In modern terms, a contract could be defined as an agreement containing
a promise enforceable in law.
What are the essential elements of a contract according to law in order
for a contract to be valid and binding on both parties?
They are:
1) privity
2) consent
3) "reasonable man"
4) consideration
5) offer
6) acceptance
7) legal objective or legality of purpose
8) sufficient certainty of terms
Our discussion will explore each element separately and, in applying the
criteria, then determine whether the Income Tax Act (ITA) could qualify
as a contract.
Privity
Privity is defined as the relation between parties and the relationship
is only between those parties. No one but those parties (or their legal
representatives) can go to Court to enforce the contract even if the
contract was for the benefit of a third party (one who is not a
signatory to the contract). There are some exceptions (aren't there
always?) but they are for unusual circumstances (agents, employees,
trustees, receivers, etc.).
The case most commonly sited as the origin of this rule is the 1861 case
of Tweedle v Atkinson. Here, the judge ruled that "No stranger to the
consideration can take advantage of a contract, although made for his
benefit. Consideration must move from the person entitled to sue upon
the contract."1
Conclusion:
There is only one signatory to the ITA: the person filing the tax return
(better known as the "taxpayer"). Conspicuous by their absence are the
Minister of National Revenue (charged with the compliance and
enforcement of the Act on behalf of the Queen or Crown) and the Minister
of Finance whose department creates the rules by which NRT enforces the
ITA. The tax return is a personal statement and the taxpayer states, by
signing it, that he complies with ALL the provisions of the ITA and the
rules and regulations imposed by Revenue Canada. (There seems to be
confusion on the part of this government department: the Minister of
this department is called the Minister of National Revenue but the
department is called Revenue Canada and a few years ago, it was called
Revenue Canada-Taxation. I don't think these boys know what they are!)
The beneficiary of the ITA is, presumably, the Canadian people
presumably because they receive the benefits of taxation through
education, public works, welfare, military security, coast guard and
health care, for example). This third party cannot enforce the ITA no
matter how directly they may be affected by the collection and
distribution of taxes.
The contract is private and National Revenue Taxation (the true name of
the federal tax department hereinafter referred to as NRT) guards
information on a specific taxpayer scrupulously. Neither do most
taxpayers reveal their information to others. The only exception is
when the parties to this contract go to Court which is, after all, a
public venue.
Consent
Voluntary consent must be made of a "capable" person but even retarded
person or a child may be held accountable under the right circumstances.
A contract accepted under threat of physical, mental or economic harm
may be voided by the person threatened. The threat may be subtle or
psychological, not necessarily physical.
Duress takes on many forms but those that come to mind are a threat of
physical harm or a lawsuit or the termination of employment. It
includes the element of compulsion.
Undue influence is subtler and is presumed in relationships such as
employer-employee, parent-child, doctor-patient, or trustee-beneficiary.
It can be defined as "the unconscientious use by one person of power
possessed by him over another in order to induce the other to enter a
contract" (Brooks v Alker 1975 DLR 577).
Unconscionable contracts are pretty much the same as those coming under
undue influence. The best example would be those entered into between
door-to-door salesmen and householders for such services as siding,
roofing, renovations or even encyclopedias and magazine subscriptions.
Conclusion:
NRT makes it quite clear in its handouts and promotional material that
disclosure of information by the filing of a tax return is voluntary.
Exactly what is meant by this, is that each person who has "taxable
income" must volunteer to disclose that income so that a specific amount
of tax may be imposed, exacted and extracted from him.
Psychologically, over the years NRT has imprinted in taxpayers' minds
the "necessity" and "duty" of all incomed persons to declare their
income by filing a tax return. Consent, if not withheld deliberately,
is assumed to have been given voluntarily by the mere filing of an
income tax return.
This is called an assumpsit agreement. Assumpsit is Law Latin which is
"he undertook". It is "An express[ed] or implied promise, not under
seal, by which one person undertakes to do some act or pay something to
another <an assumpsit to pay a debt>. A common-law action for breach of
such a promise or for breach of a contract <the creditor's assumpsit
against the debtor>."2
A general assumpsit is an "action based on the defendant's breach of an
implied promise to pay a debt to the plaintiff...General assumpsit is
brought for breach of a fictitious or implied promise raised by law from
a debt founded upon an executed consideration. The basis of the action
is the promise implied by law from the performance of the consideration,
or from a debt or legal duty resting upon the defendant."2
A special assumpsit is an "action based on the defendant's breach of an
express contract." The action is brought under a simple special
contract which is based on an explicit contract (a written one) "as
contrasted with a promise implied in law." 2
By assumpsit, your signing a marriage licence or driver's licence or
Provincial Sales Tax return or the Goods and Services Tax return or
Workers' Compensation return makes you a slave.
By filing an income tax return, whether you sign it or not, you have an
assumpsit agreement/contract. You, thereby, agree to all its terms
whether the terms/provisions of the act/contract are legal or not,
whether NRT wishes to enforce them or not or whether NRT uses legal or
illegal means to enforce the terms.
"Reasonable man"
The reasonable man theory (and application) goes something like this:
every person knowingly enters into a contract and he is or should be
aware of its contents (duties, obligations, benefits, costs, remedies,
etc.)
Here is a humorous description of a "reasonable man":
[He is one who] "invariably looks where he is going, and
is careful to examine the immediate foreground before he
executes a leap or a bound; who neither star-gazes nor
is lost in meditation when approaching trap-doors or the
margin of a dock; who records in every case upon the
counterfoils of cheques such ample details as are
desirable...who never mounts a moving bus and does not
alight from any car while the train is in motion; who
investigates exhaustively the bona fides of every
[medicine] before distributing alms, and will inform
himself of the history and habits of a dog before [patting
it]; who believes no gossip, nor repeats it, without firm
basis for believing it to be true...who never from one
year's end to the other makes an excessive demand upon
his wife, his neighbours, his servants, his ox, or his
ass; who in the way of business looks only for that
narrow margin of profit which twelve men such as [he]
would reckon to be 'fair', and contemplates his fellow
merchants, their agents, and their goods, with that degree
of suspicion and distrust which the law deems admirable;
who never swears, gambles, or loses his temper, who uses
nothing except in moderation, and even while he flogs his
child is meditating only on the golden mean. Devoid, in
short, of any human weakness, with not one single saving
vice, [without] prejudice, procrastination, ill-nature,
avarice, and absence of mind, as careful for his own
safety as he is for that of others, this excellent but
odious creature stands like a monument in our Courts of
justice, vainly appealing to his fellow-citizens to order
their lives after his own example."3
The 1871 English Smith v Hughes case summarized the principle of the
"reasonable man" thusly: "If whatever a man's real intention may be, he
so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was
assenting to terms proposed by the other party and that other party,
upon that belief, enters into a contract with him, the man thus
conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had agreed to the
other person's terms."
In practical terms, a judge would normally take a contract and interpret
its provisions based on what is written rather than its supposed terms.
A more recent Canadian case summarizes this principle: "...if the real
intention of the parties can be collected from the language within the
four corners of the instrument, the Court must give effect to such
intention by supplying anything necessarily to be inferred and rejecting
whatever is repugnant to such real intention so ascertained."
Finally, where a key element of a contract has not been negotiated
between the parties, it must be concluded that there was no contract
from the get-go rather than to expect the Court to provide the missing
element.
Conclusion:
Every person who signs a contract is presumed to be "reasonable". Every
taxpayer who files a tax return is presumed to "reasonable" also. But a
"reasonable" taxpayer is also an informed taxpayer; or so the theory
goes. Every taxpayer believes that he is required to file a tax return
as this entire society is geared to do so. There are professional tax
practitioners in every community and there are tax preparers who are not
of the same caliber but who profess to have sufficient knowledge (a
computer program and a few hours of training or study) to prepare and
file tax returns for their clients. It is a rare person today who files
his own tax return.
Using the Smith v Hughes case cited above, would any "reasonable" man
file a tax return if he did not understand the terms and agree to them?
That is the question that would be put before a judge. He would have to
conclude, on this element of contract law alone, that yes, the
particular taxpayer was a "reasonable" man even though it cannot be
argued that the taxpayer was not aware of the details of all 3,000 pages
of the ITA. If a taxpayer hires a professional to prepare his return,
he cannot argue that he was not a "reasonable man".
Consideration
Consideration is defined by my dictionary as "something that suffices to
make an informal promise legally binding, usually some value given in
exchange for the promise". It can be considered the price for which a
promisor bargains in good faith in exchange of the promise.
Black's Law Dictionary defines consideration as "any act of the
plaintiff from which the defendant, or a stranger, derives a benefit or
advantage, or any labour, detriment, or inconvenience sustained by the
plaintiff, however small [it] may be, if such act is performed, or
inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff with the assent, express or
implied, of the defendant, or, in the language of pleading, at the
special instance and request of the defendant."4
The English 1875 case of Currie v Misa established a useful definition
which states "...some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the
one party OR some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given,
suffered or undertaken by the other party."
"Under contract law, there is no contract if there is no
consideration."5 Some other elements involving consideration:
a) each party must offer some consideration
b) an old contract may be renewed or assumed to be renewed
and the using up of a consideration in the old contract
does not invalidate the new one if the new contract
uses the same consideration as the old contract did. G.
Fridman in The Law of Contract in Canada states "where
a contractual duty already exists, it may be
possible...to vary the original agreement without
necessarily establishing a whole new contract with
fresh consideration on both sides."
c) the consideration must be "legal" thing, not immoral
and not contrary to public policy
d) forbearance can be consideration: to refrain from doing
something that a person may otherwise be entitled to
do;
this goes to the heart of a creditor agreeing not to
sue if the debtor agrees to make payments; the timeline
may not be a critical factor but as long as the
payments are reasonable in the circumstances, the
creditor may (would be?) precluded from suing for
immediate or faster payment.
Lastly, the issue of whether a contract is under seal or not is
important. In today's world, it is mostly corporations and government
departments that use seals and it is unusual for individuals to do so.
Historically, a seal was a dab of hot, coloured wax placed on a paper
and, while still soft, a ring or other object which identified the
signatory was pressed into it. Contracts under seal are treated slightly
differently than those not under seal.
If a contract is "under seal", consideration is not required. A "seal"
contract is also called a "specialty contract". Only signatories to a
contract under seal can seek to enforce the contract even if the
signatories are/were agents. A contract which comes to mind is a trust
indenture. If the indenture, which is a contract between the settlor
(the donor of the property) and a trustee, is not under seal, the
beneficiaries could sue to have the indenture fulfilled claiming that
they are a party that has a beneficial interest in the contract.
However, if the indenture was under seal, they could not because they
are not a contractee (one of the contracting parties)
The question of whether a contract is "under seal" or not really
revolves around "consideration". Remember, that a contract without
consideration, unless a "deed" (a real estate transaction) or "under
seal" is void.
Conclusion:
What consideration is given in the tax return? Using the Currie v Misa
case cited above, the taxpayer undergoes "some forbearance, detriment,
loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other
party." The taxpayer suffers a loss of his money and he undertakes the
responsibility to offer willingly (voluntarily) that money to the
Government of Canada through its agency, National Revenue Taxation.
What responsibility rests with NRT? What benefit did NRT get? I argue
that there is no "forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility" on its
part. So, does it gain "some right, interest, profit or benefit"?
Absolutely!
Whether NRT receives a profit or benefit is arguable but there is no
argument that it receives an interest or a right under the ITA.
"Interest" here means the right to property or a share in it.
NRT's right is to demand payment and seize property in order to satisfy
that right and it does so from within the ITA itself, not from some
other statute law. The demand for payment comes from the result of the
taxpayer's declaration of his taxable income and the agreement to pay
the tax calculated by a prescribed formula. In fact, not only is the
taxpayer indebted to the Federal Government, but by way of another
contract between it and most Provinces (a collection agreement, the
taxpayer is indebted for Provincial income taxes to the Province in
which he lives.
Under the terms of the ITA contract, the taxpayer doesn't even have to
file a return. It is sufficient under the contract that "the Minister
of National Revenue" believes the taxpayer to owe taxes that allows NRT
to "assess" him and then to demand payment. No matter that the
assessment amount may be incorrect. The ITA allows NRT to estimate the
tax and then to seize property if the assessment is not paid. NRT does
not have to prove the assess-ment.
Offer and Acceptance
In the 1917 case of Acme Grain Co v Wenaus, the judge said that "...to
constitute a contract, there must be an offer by one person to another
and an acceptance of that offer by the person to whom it is made. A
mere statement of a person's intention, or a declaration of his
willingness to enter into negotiations is not an offer and cannot be
accepted so as to form a valid contract."
The offer must be a clear, open approach from one person to another.
The person making the offer can revoke it before the other person
accepts it unless the offer is "under seal". If the deadline for
acceptance has passed, the offer will expire.
Once the offeree (person to whom the offer is made) accepts the
contract, it comes into "existence" and becomes valid. This is called
in Latin consensus ad idem and in English "assuming a valid offer and
consideration". The acceptance itself "must be clear, unequivocal,
unconditional and made by the person to whom the offer is intended."
The "postal rule" is an exception to the general rule that the
acceptance to the offer must be made in person. "In the absence of
specific instruction to the contrary by the offeror, a person may mail
an acceptance to the offeror and the contract is said to be perfected
when the acceptor places this acceptance in the mail box for return mail
even if, in fact, it never reaches the offeror...The rule was summarized
in a[n] 1892 case Henthorn v Fraser as follows: "Where the circumstances
are such that it must have been within the contemplation of the parties
that, according to the ordinary usages of mankind, the post might be
used as a means of communicating the acceptance of an offer, the
acceptance is complete as soon as it is posted."6
However, the "postal rule" does not apply in the above manner if the
contract specifies otherwise. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a
requirement that evidence of the use of the post be established by the
sender of the offer or acceptance. To ensure that the sender or
recipient can prove its contention that the offer or acceptance was
valid, it would be prudent in using the post that the envelope be
registered, double-registered, even better.
Conclusion:
I admit that I have difficulty determining whether there is an offer in
the ITA. It is obvious that there is acceptance on the part of the
taxpayer as soon as he files a tax return. This acceptance binds him to
the contract.
I suppose that NRT's offer is that if the taxpayer files a tax return
divulging his income and deductions, he won't be penalized and his
property seized to pay a tax debt that NRT may determine without his
involvement. This may not be a fair offer in our minds but it is the
one the Minister of National Revenue has been utilizing since 1917.
Conduct
"Conduct can amount to acceptance in the proper circumstances such as
the delivery of goods mentioned in the offer. The courts have laid down
two conditions for conduct to be equated with acceptance: (1) that the
conduct was an expression of acceptance and not done for some other
reason or motive, and (2) that the action or conduct was intended as
acceptance. If a judge were called upon to assess conduct for this
reason, the judge would not weigh the acceptor's conduct subjectively,
but would decide if a 'reasonable person' would infer acceptance from
that conduct."7
Conclusion:
So, therefore, mere conduct will indicate a contract. If that's so,
then the mere filing of a tax return without a signature (such is the
case when a tax return is electronically filed) will, through "conduct",
validate the contract on the part of the taxpayer, otherwise called an
offeree (the one to whom a contract is offered and who will become\the
acceptor).
Legal Objective
All contracts must have a specific objective, whether it is to exchange
real estate for cash or its equivalent or for two people to work
together for a mutual benefit. That objective must be allowed by law or
not disallowed by law. If it is illegal in a specific jurisdiction to
grow marijuana, a contract between two people to grow and sell and share
in the profits would be illegal and unenforceable. I guess the partners
would have to shoot it out if a disagreement between them arose.
Frontier justice isn't really that bad if innocent people were not
injured.
What is the objective in the Income Tax Act? There is only one: to take
property from the "taxpayer" according to prescribed and extremely
confusing rules. The Ministry of Finance and Revenue Canada do not
provide anything in return to the "taxpayer" except perhaps a veiled
promise not to prosecute him, seize his property and throw him into
jail. The departments thus pose an obligation on the part of the
"taxpayer" which he cannot escape under the rules of Administrative Law
EVEN IF THE STATUTE IMPOSES TAX AND PENALTIES THROUGH ARBITRARY MEANS.
Conclusion
In the book, Fraud Deception Manipulation, Robert A. Marquis clearly
points out through researched, chronological evidence that the objective
of the Income Tax Act, which is to collect tax on wages and property
situated and earned in a Province, is definitely UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Therefore, there is no legal objective to the ITA, even if it were
considered a contract by other criteria.
Invalidating a Contract
The grounds for invalidating a contract are:
1) mistake
2) misrepresentation
3) frustration
There are three types of mistakes:
(a) Common: a mutual misunderstanding of some underlying or fundamental
fact which brought the two parties together even though each of the
parties is fully aware of and accepts the other party's intentions. An
example of an underlying fact is the unknown destruction of the goods
contracted for or the identity of one of the parties.
(b) Mutual: the facts are known to both parties but they misunderstand
each other. An example would be a contract for services where the
contractor stipulates that the fee payable to the contractee will be a
percentage of the fee charged to the customer. The contractor means to
pay the contractee the percentage of the contractee's portion of the
customer's bill while the contractee believes that what he will receive
will be based on the same percentage but on the entire bill. Another
example is where the seller offers for sale an object which he knows is
a copy of an original and the buyer does not tell the seller that he
believes it to be an original.
(c) Unilateral: one of the parties is mistaken but the other party is
aware of his mistake. Take the above example of the offered copy; if
the seller knows of the buyer's mistaken belief, the buyer has made a
unilateral mistake. Unilateral simply means "one party".
Conclusion:
Could a taxpayer argue that he did not understand the terms of the tax
return/contract? If he could, would the mistake be mutual or
unilateral?
The mistake, if any, would have to be unilateral because NRT would
assume (rightfully so?) that the taxpayer did know the terms and
conditions of the tax return and agreed to them by the mere fact that he
filed the return and signed it (although this latter point is not
mandatory for this contract to be valid). It is generally held in our
society that filing a tax return and informing the government of our
income is our patriotic and legal duty. To soften the financial burden
placed upon us by the amount of federal and provincial tax payable, duly
elected members of the political party in power, federally and
provincially, have always told us that the taxes we pay are used for
paying down government debt which was created to provide the funds for
our social welfare state. This is to build roads, hospitals, schools
and other government infrastructures and a lot of bureaucracy staffed by
a lot of unproductive but generally nice people doing a lot of
unnecessary work.
But those government pronouncements are a lie! Now, fully over 90% of
the taxes the federal and provincial governments collect is used to pay
interest on the public debt. Because Canada went bankrupt in 1933, it
was taken into receivership by the Bank of Canada as a bankrupt and the
Bank of Canada took over the financial administration of Canada TO DO
WITH IT WHATEVER IT PLEASED. It has never relinquished that role. Now,
tell me, who runs this country?
With less that 200 billion dollars in cash available to all Canadians
from sea to sea at any one time for day-to-day exchange, how is it
possible to repay a Federal debt which alone is over 650 billion dollars
(as of February, 1998)?
The mistake of every taxpayer is his honest belief, because of a lie,
that his taxes pay for public service and that somehow, at sometime it
will pay down the combined Provincial and Federal debt! NRT is a
government agency which operates under federal law (which is
constitutionally illegal, by the way) and implements the policies and
rules created by the Department of Finance. NRT does not make the
rules; like the police, it interprets and enforces the rules for the
benefit of the Bank of Canada, not governments.
Thus, in filing a tax return, the taxpayer could not be faulted for
making a mistake. Could he win the case for invalidating the tax
return/contract by using the argument of mistake in court?
Not likely!
The rule of law that might be used is called non est factum, "not his
deed". This defence allows a person to argue that he was mistaken as to
the kind of contract he signed. "Non est factum cannot be relied upon if
the party could have easily have read the contract in question or if the
party had a general idea as the nature and purpose of the contract. The
person pleading...would also have to prove that they sincerely believed
that the document they thought they were signing was fundamentally
different from the one they actually signed."
The argument might go something like this:
I did not understand that the Income Tax Act I was signing was
a contract. I was not informed as to my contractual
obligations. I could not understand the terms of the contract
because of the complexities of the language. It is my belief
that the terms of this contract are deliberately confusing so
that the government will have an unfair and unconscionable
advantage in enforcing the contract.
Misrepresentation
According to G. Fridman, there are four conditions of misrepresentation
that must exist in order for the courts to accept the argument that a
contract is void because of it:
"(1) the representations were made by the wrongdoer to the victim before
the contract was entered into;
(2) the representations were false in fact;
(3) the wrongdoer knew the representations were false or made them
recklessly without knowing whether they were true or false and
(4) that the victim was induced to enter into the contract in question
(a legal presumption exists in this regard)"8
In Charles Fried's book, Contract as Promise, he devotes chapter 6 to
"GOOD FAITH".9, he says, "It may be said that honesty is the virtue most
closely associated with classical individualism, and with the principle
of autonomy: If a person is well informed and in secure enjoyment of his
rights, then whatever arrangements he chooses to make deserve to be
honored. They represent a free man's rational decision about how to
dispose of what is his, how to bind himself...Honesty assures, first,
that one will not mislead another as to the facts in order to profit by
the other's misinformed decision. It assures also that engagements once
made will be honored."
In a 1909 American case of Lindsay v Kroger, the judge ruled that if a
contract is entered into by either party and "is admittedly valid of its
face, it cannot be invalidated on the grounds of fraud, except by
allegation and proof of facts showing he was misled to his prejudice
(injury)". In another case called, Loveland v Jenkins, the judge stated
that "Negligence or laches (failure to do the required thing at the
proper time) on the part of the party in signing a contract, without
informing himself as to the contents, does not stop him from questioning
its validity, where his signature was procured by trickery and fraud on
the part of the other party." In St. Louis Jewelry Co. v Bennet, a
judge stated that "a defendant induces to sign a contract by
misrepresentation is not barred from relief by the fact that he failed
to read the contract or have it read to him before attaching his
signature." Finally, in Grymes v Sanders, the judge stated that "where
a party desires to rescind a contract upon the ground of mistake or
fraud, he must upon the discovery of the fact, at once announce his
purpose and adhere to it."
Conclusion:
If there is anything that is a blatant misrepresentation, it is the
filing of an income tax return. Why?
There were several historically pivotal events in Canadian history which
created the groundwork for our current financial enslavement.
In 1910, after many attempts in the nineteen century to establish a
National, private bank in the United States and Canada, a group of
wealthy and influential men from the U.S. and Canada, led by
representatives of the Bank of England (owned by the Rothschild family),
met secretly at a resort in Jekyll Island, off the coast of North
Carolina10. In 1913, through lies, subterfuge, deceit and/or bribery,
the Federal Reserve Board and the Bank of Canada were both established
in law in the U.S. and Canada, respectively. The acts creating both
banks were signed by President Woodrow Wilson and in Canada, by Prime
Minister Robert Borden. The respective Bank Acts gave the sole right to
issue currency and to control the national bank interest rate to the
central banks in complete contravention of the American and Canadian
constitutions. Both governments sold out its people for money.
In 1917, as an excuse to repay the national debt to these banks, the
American Income Tax Act was passed as the 17th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and the Canadian War Income Tax Act
was passed as a "private act" in Canada.
Since the Federal and Provincial governments at the time knew that the
War Income Tax Act was unconstitutional, the Federal government
convinced the Provincial premiers that the WITA would be temporary and
once its purpose of paying off the war debt, it would be abolished.
Well, that never happened because it was too good a thing for the Feds
and it was part of the plan of the Bank of Canada, in any case.
Jump now to 1929. The American stock market is bloated with money from
people borrowing funds to invest in a rising and fundamentally
over-priced stock market. As payback against the United States
government which had, prior to 1913, fought the establishment of a
central U.S. bank and with the desire to obtain ultimate power to
control the North American economy completely, the Federal Reserve Board
and the Bank of Canada called in their loans to the various banks who,
in turn, called in their loans to public and private corporations. The
result: corporate bankruptcies. The stock market collapsed on the news
that some public companies were failing. Stock values plummeted
overnight and investors declared personal bankruptcy by the millions.
Thousands of people committed suicide in despair.
For the next four years, the economic situation was desperate indeed.
Then in 1933, The U.S. federal government declared bankruptcy since they
could not repay the debt owed to the Federal Reserve Board, the American
Central Bank. The "Fed", thereby, became a trustee in bankruptcy (and
receiver) AND HAS NEVER RELINQUISHED THAT POSITION. Thus all public
funds have become the property of the U.S. central bank.
The Canadian experience at the same time was a little different. Canada
had received a French colonial charter in 1540 not as a political state
but as a ship at sea (the new land could not be recognized as an
economic and political state for legal reasons) and was administered in
the same way that a ship would be.
France and England were at war in the 1700's and the Canadian
settlements were drawn into the "world war". The British forces were
victorious over the French and in 1763, "Canada" became a British
possession. It was Canada the ship that was captured, not a political
entity. It remained in the hands of the British until 1931 when, by the
Statute of Westminster, Canada was released as a British colony and
became an abandoned ship which the Rothschild Family seized through the
Queen of England. That is why the Constitution Act of 1982 continues to
declare that "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada
is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."10
Article 15 states that "The Commander-in-chief of the Land and Naval
Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is
hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." Legislative
Power is given under Article 17 which states, "There shall be One
Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled
the Senate, and the House of Commons."
It is, therefore, as obvious as the nose on Cyrano de Bergerac's face
that CANADA HAS NEVER BEEN AN INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION. Pierre
Elliot Trudeau's repatriation of the "Canadian Constitution" was and is
still today a hoax.
While the Federal Reserve Board is the true government of the United
States of America, the Bank of England is the true government of Canada.
Of course, these facts have been kept secret since there was no benefit
to governments or central banks for the general public to know about
this. These events were no more the business of the "unwashed masses"
than it was their business to learn how the Federal Reserve Board and
the Bank of Canada came into being and to whom all monetary control was
vested by the U.S. and Canadian governments.
The word "War" was dropped from The Income Tax Act since of tax
collecting was no longer for the purpose of repaying war debt. Its sole
purpose now was for the paying of funds to the Bank of Canada in payment
of the debt that existed on the date of bankruptcy. The debt might have
been able to be paid once upon a time but with no will of successive
Federal and Provincial governments and with their full knowledge and
complicity, the debt was allowed to remain unpaid and the trusteeship to
continue INDEFINITELY.
So, was there, is there, misrepresentation? I think so! Since every
Federal and Provincial government since Robert Borden has lied to all
Canadians, can the contractual nature of the Income Tax Act be lawful?
No, it cannot! It is a voidable contract.
Additionally, as we discussed before under "Consent", only a party who
has consented to a contract may be held liable for performance under
that contract. What was not mentioned there was that NRT can not only
compel a person to file a tax return but actually file a tax return on
his behalf. This is done through an arbitrary assessment where an
employee of NRT in the name of "The Minister of National Revenue"
determines without any evidence whatsoever that the person has x dollars
in taxable income and consequently will owe y dollars.
The other avenue open to NRT is to issue a Demand to File a Tax Return
which, if not complied with, will form the basis for issuing a Court
Order to have a tax return filed. Whether by conspiracy or ignorance,
the Canadian Courts have become a participant in coercing people into
contracting against their will.
Finally, it is the RCMP who use their influence (size and guns) to
ensure that a person dealt with this way actually follows through in
fulfilling his "contractual obligation".
Frustration
Frustration is exactly what it implies. A party to a contract is
"frustrated" when "there has been a radical change" in a contract "which
makes performance impossible or illegal. However, frustration cannot be
invoked just because the contract has suddenly become more difficult or
expensive for one of the parties, if the party was partly responsible
for the intervening event which destroyed the object of the contract, or
if the event was foreseeable."11
The single most radical change in the ITA happened in 1971 when a tax on
capital gains was introduced. Prior to that time, only income from
employment, business and investments were taxed. When a profit was made
from a sale of publicly traded shares or bonds or real estate or
tangible (vehicle, boat, RV, art, etc.) and intangible (business
goodwill, franchise, patent, etc.) properties, it was exempt from income
tax. For many years, NRT was frustrated from collecting taxes on these
profits whenever it lost a court case trying to make such a sale into a
"business profit" and therefore taxable.
Pierre Trudeau's government's appetite for money to try to deal with the
interest costs of maintaining the ever growing national debt encouraged
him to change the ITA to make all such capital transactions taxable.
Following the U.S. lead, he made capital gains taxable at 50%, and over
the next few years, the Department of Finance increased it taxable
amount to 75%. But, unlike the U.S., the tax rate on capital gains has
never been reduced.
This change to the ITA in 1971 was a fundamental and radical change to
the amount of tax collectible from Canadians. It did not make it
impossible or illegal for taxpayers to perform their duty of paying tax.
Therefore, "frustration" would be a difficult or non sequitor (does not
compute) argument. Despite the fact that more money was drained out of
the economy ever since to "repay the national debt", the national debt
increased.
Conclusion:
It does not seem possible to me that "frustration" would be a good
argument for voiding or altering the terms of the ITA contract. As we
have seen, it has limited application and only in situations where a
product or service cannot be delivered because of deterioration or
destruction (natural disasters, illness or obsolescence)."
Final Conclusion:
The War Income Tax Act renamed the Income Tax Act of Canada is a
ponderous piece of "private law" legislation which traps the unwary (and
largely uninformed) into submitting to excessive financial obligations
under the guise of patriotism and the need for a "social safety net" to
protect the poor and unfortunate of society. This is a fraud, a
misrepresentation of reality.
Despite our social safety net, the number of poor people is increasing
and the paltry amount given under Old Age Security does not match
inflation. Unemployment has increased from less than 5% in the 50's and
60's to about 10% in the 90's despite ever-increasing taxation.
The truth is that nearly all taxes collected under the Income Tax Act is
money taken out of Canadians' pockets and put into those of the holders
of Canadian debt instrument who are largely foreign banks. And this
money merely pays the interest while the principal increases.
That is why the ITA is a fraud. Because it is used by all Canadian
governments under the pretext of paying for social services when in fact
it pays the increasing interest on the debt created by those same
governments when Canada declared bankruptcy in 1933 and put itself into
perpetual receivership.
As a fraudulent contract, the ITA is voidable.
FOOTNOTES
1. Duhaime & Company; Duhaime's Contract Law Centre located at
http://www.duhaime.org
2. Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition; 1999; pg 120. 'It was
early known as "trespass on the case upon promises," but in
time came to be designated assumpsit (he assumed or promised),
and lies for damages for breach of all contracts, parol or
simple, whether written or verbal, express or implied...In its
origin an action of tort was soon transformed into an action
of contract, becoming afterwards a remedy where there was
neither tort nor contract. Based at first only upon an
express promise, it was afterwards supported upon an implied
promise, and even upon a fictitious promise...it soon acquired
the dignity of a distinct form of action, which superseded
Debt, became concurrent with Account, with Case upon a
bailment, a warranty, and bills of exchange, and competed with
Equity in the case of the essentially equitable quasi-
contracts growing out of the principle of unjust enrichment.
Surely, it would be hard to find a better illustration of the
flexibility and power of self-development of the Common
Law..."
3. C. Gordon Post; An Introduction to the Law (Prentice Hall;
Englegoods, N.J.; 1963) pg. 71
4. Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition; 1999; pg 301.
5. Duhaime & Company; loc cit
6. Duhaime & Company; loc cit
7. Duhaime & Company; loc cit
8. Duhaime & Company; loc cit
9. Charles Fried; Contract As Promise - A Theory of Contractual
Obligation (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.; 1981)
pg. 74-91.
10. The details of this meeting may be obtained from G. Edward
Griffin's book, Creature from Jekyll Island, a Second Look at
the Federal Reserve
11 Article 9 of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982
12 Duhaime & Company; loc cit
------------------------------------------------------------
Laughter is the best medicine! Come get your dose!
The BEST in CLEAN LAUGHS! Lose the winter blues...
-->> http://www.AikensLaughs.com
To read archived messages go to URL:
http://www.topica.com/lists/Important/read
Check Out:
http://www.detaxarchive.intranets.com
The Forensic Taxation Advocacy library of salient materials for Canada.
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: tom@cyberclass.net
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
http://topica.com/u/?a2iUd8.a2z0v2
Or send an email to:
Important-unsubscribe@topica.com
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================