Are you a "person?"
Dave Lindsay's update on Tom J. Kennedy's application
In the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the Judicial District of Ontario, Court File
No. 00-CV-14232 (commenced on June 18th, 2000) Tom-Joseph: Kennedy (the Applicant) initiated a civil action against Canada Customs and Revenue Agency & the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Justice Sedgewick of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reserved his decision on the matters presented to him on July 20th, 2000, in the Judicial District of Ottawa.
"I, Tom-Joseph: Kennedy have given 'Power Of Attorney' to David-Kevin: Lindsay to speak in court on my behalf re: my ongoing challenge with CCRA (Canada Customs & Revenue Agency) and the OCDSB (Ottawa-Carleton District School Board) and though the Crown objected, Justice Sedgewick permitted David-Kevin: Lindsay to proceed as my Agent and he made an excellent presentation on my behalf ..."
As most people involved in the freedom movement in Canada are aware, we have been deceptively induced by the Department of National Revenue into paying most of our money (property) to these corrupt people all of our working lives. This process starts when one first is led to believe that they must apply for and possess and SIN number, and then followed by one's first happy experience of filing their very own personal income tax return. This is of course, after one has voluntarily paid the lion's share of their hard earned wages during the preceding year to your happy banksters.
Hopefully, this is all about to end. (?) Recently, fellow freedom activist and good friend Tom J. Kennedy, with whom many are familiar, had the unfortunate circumstance of having his paycheques garnished by way of a third party demand from CCRA in the amount of $1400. When I arrived in Ottawa recently, Tom asked me to help him and so I began to work and drafted an application for an injunction to prevent the Ottawa Carleton District School Board (his employer) from deducting any more of Tom's money and remitting same to the vultures at CCRA.
Having no copy of the rules of court or procedures to be followed, it was of course impossible to get the documents correct the first time at court in the short period of only 2 days to prepare. Normal periods are least10 days including time for service of documents to be heard. We could only serve the School Board and CCRA on the Tuesday, 2 days prior to this application hopefully being heard, which had to be on Thursday, June 22, 2000. I did manage though to get the bare necessities filed with CCRA and the School Board so we could at least be heard.
This application was done on an emergency basis because $400 had already been deducted and remitted on June 16th and the balance was set to be deducted on Monday, June 26th of the next week. We had only one week in which to file the application on. We could not get on the list as it apparently was full, so we simply showed up at court and requested the judge hear us on an emergency basis. The lawyer for the School Board also appeared. CCRA was nowhere to be found. They did not even send a clerk, which I think was to be their downfall.
After waiting all morning and into the afternoon for a spot to be heard, Justice Kealey finally allowed me to speak around 2 PM. The lawyer for the School Board objected and voiced concerns over a lack of a factum and affidavit. I explained to Justice Kealey our emergency situation and that we were prepared to proceed orally and that if we could not, Tom would lose his money. Justice Kealey was kind enough to permit me to briefly get the relevant facts on the record, and as CCRA did not appear, we asked for an adjournment date to properly hear our application and permit me the time to file the necessary documents. Justice Kealey heard me and granted my request, with an Order that the case be adjourned to July 20, 2000 and that I had to provide my factum and affidavit by June 30, 2000. (in many cases, a lot of judges would either have refused to even hear us, or would have denied me the right to speak on Tom's behalf, even though Tom has the lawful common law right to have anyone he so chooses to represent him. I must give credit to Justice Kealey for upholding the law and ensuring that justice was served on this day. Surprise!! I don't always criticize judges!!)
As I did not get back home to Edmonton until Friday, I had only a few brief days to research and prepare the necessary documents, which did not get done until Thursday, June 29, 2000 late in the day, too late to even ship by overnight courier to Ottawa. (I didn't even have a car to get to Edmonton from our home, 45 minutes away!) I then faxed the documents to Tom who put them together on Friday and served all the parties on time. I'm so glad this worked out. Then came the big day.
July 20/00--Anytime the government is up against someone who is not a member of the bar, especially when their corruption is on the line, their first step is to instruct the judge to refuse to let the natural person (in this case, myself) represent the other party. However, as I had already been accepted by Justice Kealey, I raised this point to the judge, as well as the fact that Tom had paid to fly me out there ($) and that if I was denied the right to represent Tom, his whole case would be thrown out because I had done all the work and Tom would not be able to put the proper defence forth. (this in no way is to be misconstrued as meaning Tom did not know the law - however there is a big difference from knowing the law and being able to put this forth in court-Tom does know the law.)
The lawyer for CCRA, Roger LeClair, argued strenuously that I could not represent Tom because they were not at the original hearing. I briefly explained to the judge, Judge Sedgewick, that this was their fault; they had made a tactical decision in not showing up for court believing that it would either a) never be heard, or b), that I would not be permitted to represent Tom and it would still be dismissed. They made the wrong choice and they could not now complain and try to have me thrown off this matter right at the last minute.
LeClair, as a final argument when he could see that I was winning on this issue, brought forth the Manitoba decision which barred me from the courthouse (as a result of the criminal activity by the Man. Judiciary which I was instrumental in exposing, along with several friends. This decision has been mostly overturned by my application to the Court of Appeal. To make a long story short, my lawyer screwed up the original hearing and I still have never been heard on the issues raised. Now I can still represent people in Manitoba. The Court of Appeal agreed with me that they could not ban me from the courthouse.)
Additionally, he brought up a decision from Alberta which the judge refused to permit me to represent my friend, Jim Main, on his taxation charges. (this only weeks after I had gotten a stay of proceedings on taxation charges against Verne Warwick by threatening Rev Can with contempt of court charges!! It pays to go on the offensive.) The falsified charges against me in Alberta were all thrown in the garbage and the Crown finally had to admit on the day of trial that they "had nothing to go on," and were staying this last charge. Unfortunately, my constitutional challenge against the RCMP was then never heard. They have no jurisdiction to enforce the Criminal Code of provincial statutes and this is now filed in BC and set to be heard on Nov. 8 and 9 in Surrey. Be There!
Anyway, the judge told me I didn't even have to address this Crown's meaningless arguments, and that he was prepared to hear me! We then had an immediate problem in that the Government of Ontario was not served with their documents in time due to an oversight on our part. This was partly due to the rushed time periods involved, distances between myself and Tom, and Tom's retirement, which was an emotional period of time for him. I had informed Justice Sedgewick that we could simply adjourn the matter for two weeks to permit the time period to be met, as we had still served the A/G of Ontario the day before, or if he wanted we could still proceed as I was ready to do so. He agreed to proceed, waived the time period saying the Ontario would probably provide the same defence as Ottawa anyway and away we went.
A careful reading of the website of Eldon Warman and Alex Muljiani will provide an excellent background for the arguments put forth to the court by myself. Eldon Warman is Canada's premier natural person who has initially provided all of us with the necessary information to expose this government fraud. Alex Muljiani has been taught the same information by Eldon and is Canada's top speaker on this issue. My arguments were based upon their work, with some of my own research also added to verify our position. Our principle argument was that CCRA had no jurisdiction to even issue the third party demand as Tom had filed his Constructive Notice in October 1998, thus he was no longer a "person" or "taxpayer" as defined in the Income Tax Act. My argument lasted over 2 ½ hours. Mr. LeClair for CCRA could only speak for about 20 minutes, and only spent about 3-4 minutes talking on this vital and most important issue!! Essentially, he had no defence and he knew it!! So he simply tried to ignore it and hoped that the judge would as well.
His whole argument in this area centered around having the judge interpret the word "person" as given to it by every day language. Such an interpretation however only applies where there the word is not already defined within an Act. As the word "person" is already defined in the Act, this is the definition the judge is bound in law to follow.
I then continued to define the contractual issues at stake and the history of the definitions in the Act. Did you know that prior to the Income War Tax Act of 1917, the government had passed An Act to levy taxes upon certain Businesses in 1916? The word "person" was first defined in this act and it only applied to businesses, corporations and other legal entities, as described in the name of the Act. The following year, came the Income War Tax Act, which the government stated applied to those people making more the $10 000 per year and of course, was to be temporary. Yet the definition of the word "person" in this act is identical to that of the previous act which only applied to businesses, save for the exception of the word "partnership" which was left out and in any event does not alter the meaning provided in the Act! How is it possible that we, as natural persons, can be required to pay an income tax and file returns year after year when the definition only applies to legal entities? The meaning given today is almost exactly as that of 1916 and 1917 and the current ITA is only an addendum to the Income War Tax Act as this act was never repealed.
CCRA has fraudulently forced all natural persons into giving up their right to voluntary taxation by entering into an assumpsit contract with them by filing the returns and paying their hard earned money over to them each year, thus changing their status from that of a natural person of commoner status, to that of a "person" or "taxpayer," as defined in the ITA. Speaking of voluntary taxation, I was also able to get the argument in relation to Magna Charta 1215 on the record, which provides in law for voluntary taxation, as do several confirming documents a few years later. As anyone who has been to my seminars will attest to, I have displayed a comment from Lord Denning stating that Magna Charta was the "greatest constitutional document" of all times. As such only we the people can change or alter it. We have never done so and never will. As a constitutional document, any and all changes to Magna Charta, save those that have simply fallen into disuse, are null and void for want of jurisdiction. It will be interesting to see the judges comments in this area.
This to my knowledge, was the first time this issue was directly put forth in a court of law. Better yet, it was all documented by me in writing in my factum, with copies of the associated documents attached. The hearing was also recorded which we will now attempt to get transcripts of. I am almost 100% positive that I was able to get all the necessary information on the record to permit Tom to win this vital case.
I hold no illusions however. We are dealing with evil people, including the majority of judges, although it seems so far that we may have finally stumbled upon two decent, honest judges who will uphold the law. We can only pray. Judge Sedgewick listened to everything I had to say and took notes during my entire presentation . He asked very few questions, and the ones he did ask were, in my, opinion, relevant. I can only hope that now Judge Sedgewick can begin the process of saving this country from the banksters who run it behind the scenes.
I have enclosed a copy of all the pleadings in this matter for all to view. If anyone finds any errors, I would appreciate hearing from you. Under common law, and under the Ontario Rules of Court for Pleadings, in any defence that is filed, the defence is required by law to deny everything that they are not in agreement with in my factum. You will notice that CCRA does not deny ANYTHING that I have pleaded on Tom's behalf!!!! I instructed the judge on this matter and I do believe he was cognizant of this fact, as he had stated that he had read the documents prior to court. In fact, Mr. LeClair did not even deny any of my arguments during his presentation to the court. At no time did he deny that Mr. Kennedy is a natural person; he did not deny that there was original or an assumed contract prior to the filing of Tom's constructive notice; he did not deny that this contract had been canceled as a result of this contract nor did he deny the fact that they had no jurisdiction over Tom, in his capacity as a natural person of commoner status.
Should the judge fail to rule according to law, we will of course be appealing to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and from there, if necessary to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Many people have tried several times to file challenges based upon the BNA Act. I strongly feel that this is a winnable argument but that not all the evidence has been put before the courts. This however was not in issue before the court and I informed the judge of this a couple of times. Several of these cases such as Winterhaven Stables and others were referred to by CCRA. Here we have a lawyer who is complaining about me representing Tom, ostensibly because I allegedly lack qualifications to do so, and he is arguing 91(3) v 92(2) of the BNA Act, an issue which I did not even raise in my pleadings or at court!! In fact, before Mr. LeClair had even spoken, I made great pains to inform the judge that I was in no manner arguing this issue. I did argue that the garnishment legislation, ie. 224 of the ITA was ultra vires, or outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government because this is federal legislation and it is in relation to the exclusive powers of the provinces. That was all. It was clearly an attempt to try and get me sidetracked on non relevant issues, and it did not work.
Mr. LeClair's argument was that the sole issue before the court was whether CCRA had the authority to issue the third party demand. To the contrary, the sole issue was whether CCRA had JURISDICTION to issue this demand, a very important difference in law. He further tried to slip some deceptive arguments in his factum. For eg. at paragraph 1, he states that the Applicant was originally assessed for a certain amount of money. This is false. It was not the Applicant, Tom: Kennedy who was assessed, it was the fictitious legal entity called KENNEDY, TOM that was assessed!! If we had argued that Tom: Kennedy had been assessed and this assessment was wrong we still would have lost. Fortunately, I noticed this little trickery days before court during my studying and in clear terms, made the judge aware of this fact. If you take a look at their actual factum, you will find many such instances of fraudulent manipulation of words.
And so now we wait, and pray.
Documents related to Tom J. Kennedy's CCRA (Canada Customs & Revenue Agency) Challenge. Tom is "The Applicant" and "The Respondents" are CCRA (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) and the OCDSB (Ottawa-Carleton District School Board).
Tom's Application: CLICK HERE
Summary of Court Proceedings on June 22, 2000: CLICK HERE
Tom's Factum: Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
The Crown's Factum: Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply Factum of the Applicant: CLICK HERE
Related Documents: Pages 1 2 3 4 5
The 'Un'tax Man
Patriots On Guard
The Cyberclass's Untax Room