From: Kevin McElheran klmc@cadvision.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:13 AM
Subject: UPDATE: Kevin McElhern's Failing to File Goes to Trial
Hello folks, this case now moves forward to Trial which the date and time will be placed at the bottom of this message.
Pre-trial conference was held November 29, 2000 and was again successful. The hearing was 30 minutes in length and a new judge presided in order to keep the hearings fair and impartial.
The purpose of the pre-trial conference was to determine if the Crown had disclosed all the information I needed in order to give full answer to the charge before the Court and to 'iron out' any other wrinkles. It is also a time to determine if enough time has been scheduled for trial and if not, to make the appropriate changes.
About 3 minutes into the hearing an armed Court Bailiff entered the room and looked around and at the Judge. The Judge then spoke to the Bailiff and instructed him to leave as his presence was not necessary.
The Judge asked me if I was satisfied with the disclosure so far from the Crown to which I said there was two more items to discuss. Upon reviewing the Crown's list of witnesses, I was unable to determine which one was the 'victim' so I made a verbal application for habeas corpus. [Habeas corpus is a safeguard of the liberty of the subject.]
The Judge had me explain further. I stated that what was determined with the 'seized' trial judge earlier was that the proceedings are in accordance with the Common law and the Criminal Code, therefore under the fundamental rules of these two laws, the Crown must establish who the 'victim' is in order that there might be good cross-examination.
The Judge asked me who I thought the 'victim' is to which I motioned for the Crown to answer. The Crown just sat there and didn't say anything. The Judge then stated for the record that 'There is no victim to produce under the Income Tax Act". I said but we are not under the Income Tax Act but under the Common law and Criminal Code. The Judge said again that what is known is that there is no 'victim' with Income Tax charges. I clarified what was said and moved on.
The second problem was that the Crown again failed to provide me with their witness "willsay statements". In order for a good Constitutional and Criminal Code arguments, I must have their statements. The Judge asked the Crown why they have not provided the statements to the accused to which he grumbled about loosing one of their witnesses from out of town and that if I was to just go ahead and file my arguments, they would in turn provide the witness statements after. I smiled, looked at the Judge and said "It's their charge before the Court". [This means that the party bringing the charge before the court MUST provide what the accused needs in order to make full answer, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.]
The Judge got a little hot under the collar and told the Crown, "That is not how it's done. The Crown is not allowed to conjure up his witness statements to counter the accused arguments!!" The Judge then directed the Crown to produce the statements to the accused by the 13th of December and that I produce my arguments by the 22nd.
When the Judge was asking the Crown about his witnesses, reference was made to them as being "Revenue Canada" employees so at the end of the hearing I spoke up and stated that for the record Revenue Canada is a dead entity and no longer in existence. What they are is a "private agency known as Canada Customs and Revenue Agency". The Judge apologized and said I was right about the change and said it was a FORCE OF HABIT done in error.
The point I would like to mention here is that we must change who this department is in our heads and refer to them as they now are. THEY ARE NOW A PRIVATE AGENCY AND NOT THE ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT. If they are now at "arms length from the government" then who are they???
The trial will expose who the CCRA officially are and in so doing, I fully anticipate the Crown will vacate the charge. I expressed once again at pre-trial that if the Crown enters a 'Stay' I will not accept this charge being set aside or dismissed and proceed with the trial judge ex parte without the Crown.
I strongly recommend that as many people as possible come out to this hearing, not for my benefit but for yours. If the media is there to write something, they will not inform the public as to the truth of the evidence exposing the tax department.
Trial is set for January 8, 9, and 10, 2001 at the Provincial Criminal Court of Calgary, room 208 at 9:00 am.
(It has been common practice for the trial coordinator to remove my name from the docket in order for the public to not know where the hearings are. People may want to come earlier in order to find the court room if any last minute changes have been made.)
Just doing my part in "Standing on Guard for Thee"
Kevin McElheran klmc@cadvision.com
Kevin McElheran's court case on January 10, 2001. To read what happened click here ...
To read part of the transcript of January 10, 2001 click here ...
The Crown Appeals Kevin McElheran''s of Failing To File Charge, scheduled for Friday, April 16th, 10:00 AM in Calgary. Details click here ...
To read Kevin McElheran's February 3, 2001 communication re: Vern Brewer click here ...