Further, the (ITA) Income Tax Act as constituted, only applies to "persons" who "reside" in Canada {s.2.(1)}. The Act does not, and cannot, apply to "Natural Persons." Any lawyer who has performed his due diligence should be able to inform you of the lawful difference between the two. A quick check of history going back to the Business Profits War Tax Act 1916 and the subsequent Income War Tax Act 1917 (to which the current ITA is an addendum) and the definitions contained therein, will confirm this.

Of significance is the fact that, in law there are two types of persons-- natural and artificial. "Natural Persons", such as myself are living humans, existing because we were created by God. Lord Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law clearly explains that "Natural persons" are flesh and blood persons with common law, absolute, individual rights. He goes on to further explain that "Natural persons" are neither under incorporation contract nor under any court order making him/her any sort of ward of the Crown. Artificial persons are created by man to be "fictional entities." Examples are corporations, trusts, syndicates, partnerships, and so on.

As a "Natural Person," I have the absolute right in common law to voluntary taxation. Neither the federal not the provincial government can force me into a contract with them without my full knowledge and consent. Artificial persons registered with the government are not permitted by law to exercise this right. The word "person" as defined in the ITA (Income Tax Act) is only applicable to "artificial persons" and you will note that the term "Natural person" is conspicuously absent in the ITA. Interpreting the ITA as including "Natural persons" would mean depriving people such as myself of my right to due process of law as well as several other constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, none of which any government body has jurisdiction to so do. The fact that the term "Natural person" is excluded from the definition in the ITA is conclusive proof in law that the Act does not apply to me in that capacity. This is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation.

It is very important to note that this particular argument is the whole basis for serving the Constructive Notice which I filed with the Federal government on October 5, 1998. Since the inception of this argument circa 1985, no court action has ever been initiated by either Revenue Canada or its current form CCRA against anyone executing this lawful process.

Additionally, the word "resident" (the noun form of the verb "reside"), comes from the Latin "res" meaning 'thing' or 'object', and "ident" meaning 'location'. In other words, "residing" in Canada means a thing or object is located somewhere in Canada. In relation to the ITA, this refers to artificial persons, which in most cases, are corporations, trusts, syndicates, partnerships, and so on.

Without going into a detailed legal exposition, previous to October 5, 1998 I had been deceptively induced into changing my status from that of a "Natural Person" to that of a fictitious legal entity or artificial person, now called simply a "person". On October 5, 1998 I followed the correct procedures to cancel any and all such assumed, or what are known in law as assumpsit, contracts with CCRA. Any such contracts were fraudulently induced without full disclosure by CCRA of what exactly was happening, and were signed involuntarily by myself as I did not know what the terms of the contract(s) were.

Since I cancelled any and all contracts with CCRA, and regained my status as a "Natural Person," CCRA no longer has any jurisdiction over me. Moreover, since these previous contracts were executed fraudulently, they are of no force and effect from the very beginning.

To simplify this fact, and by way of illustration, if the Income Tax Act stated that every "child" was required to pay an income tax every year, and a "child" was defined as everyone under the age of 12, then obviously no one over the age of 12 would be required to pay this tax. If, however, CCRA informed someone older than 12 that they had to pay this tax every year without also informing him/her that they were not obligated to do so by law, and he/she then agreed to do so under this misconception, this person would have, at that point, entered into an assumpsit contract whereby they would have agreed to comply with this Act.

If they were never notified by CCRA that the Act did not apply to them since they were over the age of 12, then the contract would be fraudulent on the part of CCRA and could be cancelled at any time by the injured party. This contract would be voidable from the very beginning because CCRA would not have had jurisdiction to compel anyone over the age of 12 to pay this tax. The only additionally relevant caveat is that the government cannot unilaterally expropriate my personal property (money) without my consent.

In effect then, I am not a "person" as defined in the Income Tax Act and accordingly, CCRA has no jurisdiction over me which means I am not required to pay any money to them nor is The Teachers' Pension Plan Board required to withhold any of my property (money) as Income Tax.

I will comment on some possible misguided perceptions that may have influenced you to previously ignore the "Exempt" information submitted on my TD-1 Form on July 25, 2000.

• Liability must be established in law prior to any withholding of my property (money). The Teachers' Pension Plan Board does not have any proof of liability on my part. Without proof of liability in law, via a court judgment, there is no liability, and without liability, "tax debtor" status can not be established. Consequently, there is no lawful onus to withhold my property (money).

Next, I anticipate that you, on behalf of the Teachers' Pension Plan Board wrongfully assumed that you would be held liable if you failed to withhold my property (money) as Income tax. This is certainly not true. You cannot be held liable for following my instructions on the TD-1 Form which I submitted to the Teachers' Pension Plan Board.

Any future attempt by CCRA to attach any money to the Teachers' Pension Plan Board could easily and successfully be met with a court challenge of your own, with costs payable to the Teachers' Pension Plan Board. Indeed, considering such actions to be of such a nature as to shock the community by having state officials knowingly violate the law, it quite probably will be on a solicitor-client basis.

Lastly, please be aware of the following:

1. Tax Court has no jurisdiction to issue such any ruling as their only statutory mandate, as reflected in the Income Tax Act constituting this Court, is to determine the amount owing of someone appearing in this jurisdiction. They have no lawful mandate to entertain constitutional issues.

2. Further, the issue of direct versus indirect taxation is not an issue in this matter.

• The only issue is: Whether I am a "person" as defined in the Income Tax Act of Canada so as to make me liable to make payments under that Act? The answer clearly is that I am not. This is reflected in my Constructive Notice (copy enclosed) cancelling any and all contracts which initially changed my status to this fictitious legal entity in the first place, all without my knowledge or consent.

I would further direct your attention to the fact that nothing stated in my Declaration of Rights at Law (copy enclosed) has ever been refuted or denied. In law, lack of refutation is significant as in the following lawful maxims (principles of law) which apply in our courts in this country and have the full force of law supporting them.

Nulla pactione effci potest ut dolus praestetur (see Magna Charta 1215)

No contract can provide that a fraud shall be committed.

Qui non negat, fatetur

He who fails to deny, admits.

Qui non improbat, approbat

He who does not disapprove, approves.

Qui tact, consentire, videtur

He who is silent is deemed to consent.

See also Ontario Rules of Civil Practice, s.25.07(2)

At no time has the Teachers' Pension Plan Board denied my truthful facts, as contained herein. If you or your solicitors were to do so, I would request documented proof that I am incorrect. Failure to provide this proof, either directly or indirectly by not answering my points or addressing issues that are not relevant to my case, constitutes an admission that I am indeed correct. As can be seen in relation to all of the above, I am completely correct.

Because I am not a "person", "taxpayer" or "tax debtor" as defined in the Income Tax Act, nor do I "reside" anywhere, CCRA has no jurisdiction to require the Teachers' Pension Plan Board to withhold my property (money). I, Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy, a "Natural Person" of commoner status, have no account with CCRA nor am I a "client" of their organization.

Furthermore, CCRA has not provided you with any proof of liability as required by contract law. I remind you that assuming that I am a "tax debtor" is not proof of liability. In addition, CCRA must show you proof that some type of contract exists - since October 5, 1998 - which has changed my status from that of a "Natural Person" to that of a "person" or "taxpayer" who is "resident" in Canada. No such contract currently exists.

I am respectfully instructing you to comply with the law by immediately ceasing to withhold my property (money) and by returning my property (money) which you have already withheld. I would further instruct you not to provide any personal documentation, either in the form of copies of my letters, pay deposit slips or any other information to CCRA as they now have no jurisdiction over me. As such you cannot by law comply with any of their demands, such a compliance being a violation of my privacy and confidentiality rights.

I look forward to a warm and friendly relationship with the Teachers' Pension Plan Board for many years ahead. I am steadfast and truthful when I tell you that I do not want the issues raised in this communication to come between us in any professional capacity. Please understand that I can not stand by and let the Teachers' Pension Plan Board in cahoots with CCRA unlawfully take my property (money).

However, should you on behalf of the Teachers' Pension Plan Board take my property (money) from my future pension pay deposits, I will have no alternative but to initiate immediate court action against yourself, your supervisory staff and the Teachers' Pension Plan Board to retrieve this money and to prevent further deductions at any time in the future. Please understand my sincerity when I say that I do not wish to pursue this avenue and will not do so except as a course of last resort.

I await your response.

Sincerely,

 Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy

P.S. Should you be entertaining any doubts as to the truthfulness and lawfulness of the information as stated above, I would request that you urgently ask your solicitors to provide solid proof contradicting these particular points:

a) Request proof that this is not a contract issue and that the Income Tax Act also applies to "Natural Persons."

b) Request proof that I am "resident" in Canada.

c) Request proof that I am "liable" to pay any money at all to CCRA during the year 2000.