From: Wally Dove <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Monday, April 23, 2001 11:29 AM
I am writing to update you on the latest in the CCRA situation relating to one of my clients.
NOTHING IN THIS REPORT, NOR ANYTHING I HAVE DONE, IS EVER TO BE INTERPRETED AS AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROUGH A GOVERNMETN OR TO SHOW DISPRESPECT TO ANY JUDGE IN THIS LAND! JUDGES HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT JOB, IT IS THE SYSTEM THAT STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN.
As you may be aware, about a years or so ago, I intervened in one of my client's situation with Revenue Canada. They had scheduled an audit and I had just become the accountant for the company.
I met the auditor when she arrived to commence an audit and presented here with a letter, attached to which was a Public Servant's Questionnaire ("PSQ"), and an article concerning an Alberta mother of 10, Deb Stephan, who took her life in order that her husband use the insurance proceeds to pay Revenue Canada in order to prevent them from taking her home and putting her 10 kids on the street.
She told me that she had seen these before and they had been instructed not to complete or sign them (the PSQ's).
I suggested that she consult with her supervisor and she immediately returned to the office to do so.
Over the ensuing several months, I wrote an additional three letters to Revenue Canada in order to have them complete the PSQ, attaching a PSQ each time for their convenience.
Not only did they not even acknowledge my correspondence, they continued to correspond with my client despite my very specific request not to do so.
Eventually, they delivered a "Requirement" to produce books and records, in accordance with section 231.2 of the Act. We ignored this, since they had ignored me, and eventually they laid criminal charges under section 238 of the Act.
We appeared in court for the "15 minute trial" to use the words of the Crown, on November 20, 2000.
This trial was a very difficult thing for me. I had to endure constant ridicule from the judge and crown for my lack of knowledge of court procedure (specifically, how documents are to be filed and their format, etc.). All very important to them, but of very little importance to the issues in the case. I also had to make myself a witness in order to enter the four letters as evidence.
The judge really gave us a very difficult time. She was constantly arguing with me and asking me such things as my authority to ask questions of Revenue Canada and specifically, my authority to require them to complete a PSQ. Her bias was obvious.
I had commenced the trial by asking her to recuse herself due to my "reasonable apprehension of bias" resulting from her obvious conflict of interest in hearing a case involving income tax, a tax that was used, in part at least, to pay her salary, etc.
On April 20, 2001 (last Friday), we appeared to present argument.
After the Crown's 5 to 10 minute argument, I commenced to present my two and one-half hour argument.
As I commenced, the judge returned to her original demeanor and demonstrated, what I felt was, her bias in this case. She interrupted me and told me that I could not say that I knew the husband of Deb Stephan, the lady that was referred to in my letter to Revenue Canada.
It was at this point that I told the judge that the courts of this Nation belong to the people who are looking to her for protection from a tyrannical government that has turned against them.
From that moment on, her demeanor and attitude changed.
I was permitted to make my argument uninterrupted, except for a couple of occasions when the Crown objected and asked the judge to sanction me for things I was saying. The only thing I said was that the judicial system was corrupt and that something he had said during the trial led me to believe that he had met with the judge without our being invited. This would surely prejudice our position.
The objections were mostly ignored, and I was allowed to make my presentation uninterrupted.
I presented every argument that we have that would apply to this case. I presented case-law to support our position that income tax as currently constituted in Ontario is COMPLETELY unlawful. I presented seven cases including the Lord Nelson case of 1951.
The judge was impacted by the presentation, that was very obvious. I just hope that the seed of TRUTH that has been planted will produce fruit.
The Crown asked, and received, permission to present his own case-law, and we are to return on May 18, 2001, courtroom three (the same room) in Lindsay, Ontario.
It is my firm belief that the court, unless the judge allows herself to be corrupted and simply "follows orders", which I do not believe she will, will stay the charges or enter a finding of Not Guilty.
The "back door" protection for the court, is that fact that the "Notice" is to be issued by the Minister, and not his designate.
Here's hoping for a dispensation of justice once again in this country. And as Judge Hayward said on July 14, 1949, "we want the world to know we stand for justice, truth, and the value of a single human life".
If any of you would like a copy of my notes that I made for the argument, please request them and I will forward to you.
Wally Dove, CGA