BECOMING FREE

OF THE CANADA

INCOME TAX ACT

Understanding how your inherent rights as a Canadian have
been suspended by the federal government and what you
can do about this violation of your natural person status.

Condensed Version
Introduced and edited by
Rev. Alex Muljiani
© 2000 All Rights Reserved.
Edition 6
This edition is a revision with additional information, updated May 2000
 Warning:

Your inherent rights as a natural person and a Canadian citizen

have been suspended by the federal government of Canada without
your knowledge.

Your natural person status, your birthright, has been violated and
fraudulently removed from you.

You are living your life under a form of military law that has
stripped you of your right to be innocent until proven guilty.

The Canadian ‘money’ in your pocket is not printed or controlled

by the federal government, but rather, by international banks.

And this is just the beginning of your discovery…

 Awakening to the truth

“Do you believe in fate, Neo?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my life.”

“I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here.
You feel there’s something wrong with the world, but you don’t
know what it is. Do you want to know what it is?”

“Yes.”

“You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church. When
you pay your taxes. It is the wool that has been pulled over your eyes
to blind you from the truth.”

“What is the truth, Morpheus?”

“That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into
bondage. Part of a prison that you cannot smell, or taste, or touch.”

“A prison for your mind.”

‘The Matrix, 1999’

3
 INTRODUCTION

By Rev. Alex Muljiani

Important Note: I do not have a political agenda for disseminating the information in this book. I have
no affiliations with any national or provincial political party. My interest is to place the truth in the hands
of Canadian taxpayers, who can do with it what they choose. This book is meant as a public service to
educate Canadians on their own income tax system and rights and freedoms as Canadians. I do not
recommend anyone doing anything against his or her conscience or beliefs. I believe it is imperative
that Canadian taxpayers understand just what they are agreeing to by signing their yearly T1's to
Revenue Canada. It is my right to freedom of speech to make this known. I do not judge anyone
who disagrees with my opinions and I expect the same courtesy in return. I do not have a grudge against
any employees of Revenue Canada or others who work for government. I also do not believe in
harassment of public employees or direct confrontation with Revenue Canada.

There is a larger agenda at work in this taxation system than we realize. I must tell you I believe the
government of Canada is now engaged in a full-scale war to remove all the last vestiges of freedom and
property rights we currently take for granted. My guess is that by the time you are finished this course,
based solely upon the facts, you will feel the same way as I do.

The people who are used to enforce these oppressive taxes are ignorant of the larger forces at play. I
believe that awareness of this information will reach 'critical mass' in the near future and I hope that this
will force a more honest and frank dialogue between government and citizenry, whom it is supposed to
serve, rather than the other way around. That is my ultimate goal – to force a response from
government to the pleas of the people it is meant to serve. This is only one step in the process required
to bring controlling power back into the hands of people rather than government. It is now my mission in
life. The actions and awareness of individual Canadians like you is critical to this process.

Now, if you have decided that you are fed up with the incredible stupidity and incompetence of how your
money is wasted by your federal and provincial governments… continue reading. You can do something
about your situation:

Your choices are:

1. To continue to rage against the system, which results in no change or

minimal change to the system. The only result is an increase in your blood pressure
and stress level.

2. To try tax evasion, which is ‘illegal,’ affects your psychological well being
and will likely cause you serious legal consequences eventually. I do not condone tax
evasion in any form.

3. To withdraw officially and lawfully from being subject to the Canada

Income Tax Act.

4
Is this last option even possible? If it is possible, then why have you never heard of it? You may have
heard rumors of people who have refused to play the income tax game and have successfully stopped
having to pay income tax permanently. These same people have not been taken to court or charged with
tax evasion by Revenue Canada. What did they do that allowed them to stop dealing with one of the most
powerful and ruthless bureaucracies in our government?

This book explains in detail what those people did. Yes, those rumours are true. There have been people
who have successfully withdrawn from the income tax tyranny effectively, permanently and lawfully.
They do not have to fight with Revenue Canada or commit any form of tax evasion.

• They have retained all their sovereign rights and citizenship rights.
• They have not had to hide assets offshore in tax havens (more on this later.)
• They have not had to become non-residents.

These people still live here as ‘free’ citizens, but without the heavy burden of outrageous income taxes
taken from them without their consent. I know because I am one of those free citizens. If you choose to,
this book will help you understand and believe that you can be one as well. You can choose to withdraw
yourself from being subject to the income tax effectively, permanently, and lawfully. No government
bureaucracy or court in the land can take that away from you ever again.

As for me, I live a simple middle class lifestyle in Vancouver, British Columbia. I am in my late thirties.
My passion and specialty is in research of our history and our laws. I grew up my whole life feeling there
was something wrong with the system we all lived under. However, I could never quite put my finger on
it. Why were we so free and yet so unhappy as a society? Were we really free, or was there something
missing from the equation? I came across the answer quite by accident. Or was it an accident? When the
student is ready…and I guess I was ready. Events started occurring very quickly that people would
usually label serendipity, coincidence, or fate. However, you label it, the events quickly showed me that
my destiny was to bring this truth to the Canadian people. Did I want to be a public figure? No, it would
have been easier to remain anonymous. It would have been safer. However, my father taught me at an
early age that if there is an injustice to be righted and I don’t do something about it, I was a coward. I
refuse to be a coward. So why would I be writing a book telling my peers that I know a truth that may
shake their belief system about how our government and the tax system really works? All I am doing is
sharing the truth with my friends, my associates, my neighbors and my society. I have nothing to fear if I
stand for the truth. Corny as it may sound, I believe in my family, my country and God as my creator.
This may not sound important right now, but by the end of this book, you will come to realize how
critical that statement it.

About my family. I have been truly blessed to have a wife and daughter who are God’s gift to me beyond
all words. The strength I gain from their presence makes the commitment I give to spreading this
information easier to deal with. I am first and foremost a family man and a proud Canadian.

I used to be a computer professional before thing changed dramatically in my life. I decided to become a
minister because my heart told me that my search for the truth would include this commitment to God.
What I am not is an accountant, a lawyer or a government bureaucrat. If I were, this information would
likely not be here in your hands today. People seem to believe that only someone with ‘credentials’ or
letters after their name is in a position to tell you what’s the truth. Even a small amount of thought to this
matter will make you realize the irrationality of this reaction. You will come to realize why this is so as
you make your way through this program. I have spoken with accountants and lawyers about this system.

Most have scoffed at it and thought that Eldon is ‘unqualified’ to understand and to share this with
Canadians. I have asked these same lawyers and accountants if they could define the words ‘person’
‘natural person’ ‘entity’ ‘resident’ ‘admiralty law’ and ‘common-law’ to me, so as to back up their
argument. I have yet to find one who knows what these definitions mean. The importance of this query
will become clear to you in this book. I am telling you very clearly today there is a massive fraud and
deception being perpetuated against the Canadian people today. These lawyers and accountants have
been led down a path of ‘educated ignorance’ and we common folk believe them to be great and
important people. And so we follow them blindly, we wait for their approval before thinking for
ourselves. We have no one to blame but ourselves. It is time to wake up and learn of the great truths that
are kept away from the Canadian people.

Let me make it clear that I am not the individual who originally uncovered this information. The author
of the ‘detaxation’ system is Mr. Eldon Warman, who is semi-retired and lives in Alberta. Mr. Warman
has spent 20 years studying the history of Canadian taxation, the BNA Act, the Canadian and American
Constitutions, the Magna Carta, Common Law and so-called Statutory Law as well as dozens of taxation
precedents on a mission to uncover a simple truth. That truth is that Canadians have been hoodwinked for
82 years over the Income War Tax Act of Canada. We have been lied to and intimidated for 82 years not
to question the validity of the most oppressive act ever passed by parliament on the people of Canada.
Before you pass judgement on this material as the ravings of another crazy tax rebel fanatic, read the
materials in your possession fully. You may be shocked and angered by what you find out in the book –
but I guarantee you won’t be disappointed. You will have learned something about law that will give you
clarity to discern between honesty and horse hockey when you hear explanations of tax laws spouted by
politicians.

I learned of the existence of this information through my own extensive search for the facts behind all the
rhetoric and obfuscation we are subject to regarding tax laws. Every Canadian ‘taxpayer’ is obligated to
understand and be aware of the implications to them of 2500 pages of legalese in the Canada Income Tax
Act. I was able to contact Mr. Warman directly and to learn firsthand everything I needed to know about
the difference between a ‘taxpayer’ and a ‘natural person.’ I practically became Mr. Warmans assistant
and disciple. Eldon is my mentor and teacher. Once I realized the power of what I had in my hands, I
knew that others might be grateful to learn what power they have available to them as well.

I asked Mr. Warman for permission to take his knowledge to as many Canadians as I could and he kindly
allowed me to do so. I hope that you will shortly understand the value of what you hold in your hands
and the sacrifice that has gone into these teachings. Mr. Warman has learned the hard way that dealing
with the tax authorities the ‘traditional’ way leaves you a lamb alone among wolves. The only
‘protection’ individuals (sheep) had against the tax wolves was the use of lawyers. Lawyers, however,
are not shepherds. Lawyers walk among the wolves. You will find out why in this book. After being
nearly ruined for life by specious tax charges against him in the United States, Mr. Warman set out on a
mission, determined to never let it happen again. What you are about to learn is thanks to a brave man
who is honorable, ethical and decent. I hope after reading this book, you begin to appreciate his courage
as much as I do.

6
Paying Taxes
For anyone who believes it is their civic duty to pay income taxes as directed by their federal and
provincial governments, I have no argument. I make no judgements on individuals whose opinion varies
from mine; as I expect not to be judged if my opinion varies from yours. If after you understand the
information contained here thoroughly, you do not wish to alter your circumstances, I wish you the best
and thank you for making the effort to learn something important. At least you may continue on your
journey with eyes wide open to the truth. For those who are motivated to change their circumstances, I
show a way out that is safe and lawful, and will not change your current circumstances except for this –
you will have more control over your life and more control over your money (your property.)

The government will not go broke if you withdraw your portion of the $160,000,000,000 yearly (as of
1998) contribution that Canadians throw into the pot – of which over 50% is wasted every year. 27% of
this jackpot (or $43,200,000,000 a year) goes to cover just interest payments on the accumulated debt and
over 25% goes to politicians pensions, special interest subsidies, patronage, land claims, bigger
bureaucracies, duplication of services… need I go on. You realize I am being extraordinarily
conservative when I count 50% as the yearly wastage. By some accounts, it is closer to 70%. This is
incredibly obscene. You and I have no say in the use of this money. Yet the demand for more of our
property (money) keeps growing insatiably. Most Canadians would have no problem paying taxes if they
received equal value for their money. Studies on the efficiency of government services show that the
value for each dollar in taxes returns less than 30 cents in service – and the service received is about half
as good as that in the private sector. The truth about how much Canadians are in debt, as I recently found
out, shocked me beyond description. The total combined debt in every form, from every level of
government in the country, is now over $5,100,000,000,000. That's right, with a ‘t.’ That’s ten times the
per capita debt of U.S. citizens.

I need not go on a tirade here about this hot subject because it either incites an anger that pushes people
toward revolution or it makes people run toward the whole hearted defense of the government. Both
irrational and emotional reactions with negative consequences. I must also make clear that my beliefs are
based on the golden rule and as an extension, on common-law, our heritage. Everything that is happening
in our country today goes against all beliefs that the majority of the population hold dear. Folks, we
cannot afford to be non-committal Canadians anymore.

Let us consider instead, taking another more reasoned, methodical and rational route. Let us find out if it
is possible to actually withdraw ourselves completely out of being subject to the Income Tax Act and not
be in an unlawful position by doing so. The answer will amaze you and, I hope, delight you as well. You
may find out that you have more power over your financial life than you were ever led to believe by your
peers, your government, your teachers, or your parents. Not because you were intentionally misled
(except by government) but because they are ignorant of the truth, buried in dusty manuals and statutes in
the basements of libraries and courts.

I must warn you that the material in this book is very strongly opinionated. You may not agree with
everything stated. In fact, there is much even I do not agree with in this book. However, all the
allegations that may at first sound preposterous are based in fact. And I am a strong believer in the right
to freedom of speech. It upsets me greatly to find that, supposedly free, men and women are afraid
to speak out against CCRA. Of all the federal bureaucracies, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA) maintains the strongest grip of fear on a citizen’s need to speak out against their government’s
actions. This is only due to intimidation, blackmail and the denial of your rights. I will attempt to give

7
sources and additional information regarding these allegations where possible. Do not let passages you
do not agree with prevent you from seeing the ‘big picture.’ Government and Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency (CCRA) use obscurity and lack of awareness as their key weapon to control the
individual citizen.

I want you to know that I am not recommending a total tax revolt. It may surprise you to know
that I do believe in paying some taxes – to a reasonable limit. I am opposed, however, to being
dictated how much I have to pay with no true representation by my government. I will not be able to
show you how to pay no taxes at all. My job is to show you that you do not have to pay any income
taxes. For all those who are uncomfortable with the idea of withdrawing from the highest income tax
rates in the western world, let me assure you, you will still be paying taxes, plenty of them, in a hundred
different ways. It’s just in most cases, you can feel like you have some choice and control over your tax
expenditures.

Here is a short list of where Canadians currently pay taxes:

(We have over 160 overt and hidden taxes and government fees in Canada.)

• Federal Income Taxes

• Provincial Income Taxes
• Municipal Taxes
• Goods and Services Taxes
• Provincial Sales Taxes
• Gasoline Taxes
• Cigarette Taxes
• Alcohol Taxes
• Restaurant Liquor Taxes
• Transit Levy Taxes
• Medical User ‘Fees’ Taxes
• Probate Taxes
• Capital Gains Taxes
• Unemployment ‘Insurance’ Taxes
• Canada ‘Pension Plan’ Taxes
• Oil and Tire Disposal Taxes
• Property Taxes
• Photo Radar Taxes
• Municipal Parking Ticket Taxes

…and on and on

8
From this incomplete list, I am only talking about removing yourself from the first two taxes
(and possibly UI and CPP taxes if you want to.) This leaves you lots of opportunity to contribute to
wasteful government initiatives at your discretion. So do not feel guilty, dear taxpayer, about not
paying your ‘fair share.’ The government’s idea of ‘fair share’ and a rational human beings idea of
‘fair share’ parted company half a century ago. You will constantly read comments in the
newspapers from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) officials praising the 95% of
‘taxpayers’ who pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes. You can decide the value of this ‘praise’ when it
comes to your personal situation.

When you finish studying this book, I hope you are ready to take action in this matter. I want everyone to
know that this system does not have to be hidden and discussed in whispers. This system is lawful and
is your right to implement under Anglo-Saxon Common Law. It is the government that has misled
you and tricked you into becoming a ‘taxpayer.’ Good studying and God bless you for your courage.

Rev. Alex Muljiani

Vancouver

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything
it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history,
the stage of rule by brute force."
--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"

9
 Foreword

The purpose of this book is to serve as an educational tool on several subjects. The primary objective is
to teach the reader the Anglo-Saxon Common Law. The general ignorance of this law has brought the
citizens of Canada, the USA and other former British influenced common law countries to a state of near
despotic subjugation and slavery. Do not let the term "Common Law" lead you to a state of confusion
and sweaty palms. It is as basic and as simple to the human psyche as the air we breathe and the food we
need for sustenance. It is only the so-called “Statutory Law,” created by the devious minds of people who
would prefer to enslave us which requires years of study in law school and a mind capable of
understanding and interpreting that Byzantine form of so called “law.”

The incentive for learning how to get oneself out from under the burden of the Income Tax should suffice
to make, what is unfairly touted to be a dry, uninteresting and complicated subject (the Common Law)
much more palatable.

You will also learn about Canada's status (or lack thereof) as a country. You will also learn about the
very questionable legal status of the Federal and Provincial governments of Canada. In addition, you will
begin to see clearly the licensing fraud (auto, driver's, marriage, etc.) The sad state of affairs currently
existing in what was once the great republican experiment, the USA, and maybe some other things you
really didn't want to hear or know. You may find that it was much easier and less complicated to remain
an ignorant and obedient slave. It takes “guts” to face the risks and problems resulting from the task of
obtaining and maintaining freedom, independence and happiness.

The authors have drawn from a wide variety of sources for the basic information contained in this book,
some of which are mentioned within. However, regarding the system of ‘de-taxing’ one self lawfully
from the Canada income tax, this author claims originality.

Eldon Warman
Calgary

10
 You can choose what to believe

“You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and
believe whatever you want to believe.”

“You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how
deep the rabbit hole goes.”

“Remember, all I’m offering is the truth.”

“Nothing more.”

‘The Matrix,’ 1999

11
 UNTAXING YOURSELF

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO QUIT FILING INCOME

TAX RETURNS AND TO QUIT PAYING INCOME TAX - IN
CANADA

PERMANENTLY - EFFECTIVELY - LAWFULLY

You, your spouse, your children and your grandchildren are trapped by a
hungry packs of wolves somewhere out in the wilderness. If you believe it
would be immoral to do anything that would deprive the wolves of
their intended dinner, then read no further......

ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED INITIAL QUESTIONS

YES - This system works just fine!

NO - You won't go to jail and/or lose your property and life savings! Of course,
it would be prudent to make some security arrangements.

NO - The Government will not go broke! Income taxes were not meant to pay
for any government services. It is a method of taking usury debt money (Canadian
money) out of circulation to (supposedly) prevent devaluation of that money - at
your expense - by taking the fruits of your labour and skill and deleting it from
existence.

Please note: The authors are not "funded" by any individual or organization in providing this information.
We have no financial backing. An estimate of the cost to Mr. Warman for this information is somewhere
around $10,000,000 US. Loss of salary, loss of pension, loss of property and loss of investment
opportunity make that a very conservative estimate. Warman’s current salary with American Airlines
(with whom he worked before the Internal Revenue Service did their dirty deed), with the seniority he
would now have, would be $15,500 US per month. Making this information available to EVERYONE
who needs it does not mean it has not cost someone very dearly. And, ironically, if Warman had been
aware of this information in 1983 that he now offers you in these lessons, he would most likely have been
able to avert the IRS problem - and thus, would not be here to provide this information for Canadians.

Feedback indicates that Canadians who are now using this information are not only finding
themselves suddenly much better off financially, they have also gained a new perspective on their
own power and authority in other areas requiring interaction with government, by learning what it
means to be a sovereign natural person.
12
 REPUDIATION EXCUSES
Frequently, there is a “firewall,” or a mind blockage, especially by university educated people in Canada
against the acceptance of the material contained in this paper. Although this observation applies more to
the disciplines of law, accounting, political science, education and economics, it also seems to hold true to
a degree for all other disciplines as well. Since the facts in this paper are irrefutable and the system of
detaxing has been proven effective for over 14 years, the reason for the ‘intellectual rejection’ seems to
fall into one, or all, of the following categories:

1. Self-serving - income tax counseling, income tax return preparation and income
tax litigation are cash cows for many of those in such parasitic professions.

2. An elitist attitude and arrogance will not allow a person to admit that the very
fundamental basis of this detax system has eluded them.

3. The Aristotelian “Fallacies of Philosophy” are ‘dirty tricks’ used by unscrupulous

persons to persuade an outcome favorable to them in a debate. The first one we will take
notice of is when a person will not give consideration to the value of a statement if it does
not come from a recognized ‘authority’ - ignoratio elenchi (argumentum ad
verecundiam.)

4. Then, there is the statement that “the only sure things are death and taxes.” A lie
repeated often, especially from supposedly authoritative sources, eventually becomes
established as a fact. And the deception of pairing a fiction – (taxes are a sure thing) with
something that is obviously a sure thing – (death), takes on a life of its’ own.

5. Cowardice. Those who usually reject this opportunity to extract themselves from
this form of slavery rationalize their fear into other excuses. For instance, there is the
excuse of “patriotism” which is based upon a false understanding of the purpose and use
of the income tax.

Therefore, don't be surprised when your family, friends and co-workers greet your newfound insight with
something less than enthusiasm.

13
 HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS COURSE
Income tax is most likely ‘legal’ (according to interpretation of a statute passed by government)
However, it is most likely not ‘lawful,’ as ‘lawful’ means intent, or intention of use, as well as what the
statute may say, or appear to say.

1. The tax provisions of the BNA Act have nothing to do with the income tax. The Income Tax Act is
private legislation for specific persons, with such persons being defined in the Income War Tax Act
(1917.)

2. The Federal Government has hypothecated a legal entity (artificial person) called a “taxpayer” by
specific definition in the Income War Tax Act (1917.) It has further hypothecated the existence of the
making of a contract based upon the filing of an income tax return by a natural person, thus
supposedly making the filer this legal entity called a “taxpayer.”

3. The basic and only tool the Federal Government has in law for these hypothecation’s is
“presumption,” an anciently established common law tenet to establish debt or duty where no formal
contract exists. The remedy against presumption is timely negation.

4. A “taxpayer” entity is equal to ‘slave’ status and owns nothing, including his/her labour and skills.

5. To retrieve oneself from this hypothecated ‘slave’ position and to return to ‘natural person’ status
requires a correct and specific use of the ‘trespass warning.’

6. Specific remedies are required to counteract potential Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA)’s actions against you, as well as other person’s unlawful actions against you, in the
procurement of income tax.

7. A grounding in common law and an understanding of your status under common law is presented as a
very necessary ‘rock’ upon which to stand and to face the actions of our ‘pirate’ government in
Canada.

14
 **Before we continue…BEWARE**

There are dangerously ineffective so-called detax programs being taught through seminars and
videotapes. Whether these are Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) sponsored programs, or
the work of naive individuals who have recognized a need by the Canadian people which can be
exploited, is open to speculation.

The test: In their program …

1. Do you remain in the ‘system’? That is, are you still required to keep records, file
income tax returns and negotiate in any way with Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency (CCRA)?
2. Are you still a feudal serf - a “taxpayer”?
3. Are you left behind still under the authority of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA)?
4. Are you told that income tax is voluntary because of the “voluntary compliance”
clause?
5. Are you left in a “confrontational” position to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA), rather than being left in a “withdrawal” position from the entire income tax
system?
6. Are you taught about the constitutionality of the federal governments right to collect
taxes?

If “yes” to any of the above, BEWARE, it is not really a ‘detax’ or ‘untax’ system. Ask anyone who
has been to court for ‘failure to file’ or for ‘tax evasion’ if income tax is “voluntary.”

Many people in the USA got trapped by IRS sponsored ‘sting operations’ in the 1970’s (which were run
by either IRS accomplices or naive entrepreneurs) by declaring themselves in rebellion against the income
tax. Their presence and participation in these programs made those people with such attitudes known.
They were declared “Illegal Tax Protesters” (ITP's), which is equivalent to “mutineer” under Admiralty
Law. Admiralty is the form of law under which the Canadian income tax is administered. Rather than
have a bull’s-eye placed upon your back, why not run up a flag that has a picture of a rattlesnake upon it
and the inscription “Don't tread on me!”

15
 NOW, TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROGRAM WHICH WORKS...

LESSON #1
There is NO law in Canada requiring a Canadian Citizen to file a
personal income tax return or pay a personal income tax.

Let’s go back a few years. Do you remember being a young person just beginning to move into
adulthood and being excited about starting your first after school job. You were full of enthusiasm and
optimism! You made it through the job interview and started your new job. Your parents simply told
you to work hard and be at your job on time. That’s where it ended with the advice. It seemed enough
for you at such a young age. It was tough enough just keeping yourself to a disciplined schedule while
your friends were out cruising or doing other fun things. Your new boss was very nice and very helpful
to you the day you started. You were ushered into his office and told what was expected of you, how
long your training would last and so forth. There were also these forms that you were ‘required’ to fill
out as an employee. Your boss helped you get through all of them because they seemed so
overwhelming. You were told to fill out a TD-1 for taxes and then you would get to file your first tax
return the following April, just like a grown-up. You were now a ‘taxpayer,’ just like your parents. Oh,
how important that made you feel, how grown-up. The following April, you asked your mother for help
in filling out one of these complicated T-1 tax forms and you were told if you did so, you could expect a
check back from the government in a few weeks. Wow, more money! When was all this generosity
going to stop? Looking back on those times today, what happened? You were kept in the dark, weren’t
you? Were you told the following at any time in your life?

The act of filing an income tax return (T-1 Form) and paying income tax places one under
assumpsit contract with the Minister of National Revenue (and thus, Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency (CCRA).

The terms of the contract are the Income Tax Act and Income Tax Regulations. Your status
becomes a legal entity called a “Taxpayer” - a form of feudal serf (or slave.)

Assumpsit (root word - assume) comes from old English law - an actual or implied contract not under
seal. Or in modern terms, not witnessed.

“Entity” or “legal entity” in law is an ‘artificial’ or ‘fictitious’ person created by privilege arising from
the Government, thus making the Government its creator and owner. You will learn more about artificial
and natural persons later in this book. Some of the information in this book will be hard to understand at
first reading. I would strongly recommend you read through these passages at least 4 times over a couple
of weeks if you want to really understand them fully. Let’s continue now.

“Taxpayer”
The Income War Tax Act (1917) definition of “taxpayer:” 2. (f) “Taxpayer” means any person paying,
liable to pay, or believed by the Minister to be liable to pay, any tax imposed by this Act;

You became a “taxpayer,” a fictitious person or legal entity, by filing an income tax T-1 form.
16
Becoming a “taxpayer” is similar to that of being in the Army. Once you sign on the dotted line to join
the army, you lose all rights. You are placed under Admiralty Law (law related to the military or
international contracts.) Court cases involving the income tax are ‘cases in contract’ under administrative
procedure.

Laws and Rights have no bearing in such cases. Legislation, effective in 1997, supposedly requires
reporting foreign investments and trusts to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA). Taxpayers
must continue to submit to these new amendments to the rules and regulations.

Definitions within the legislation preclude natural persons of commoner status.

The following are quotes from that legislation:

Quote: A “reporting entity” is defined to be a specified Canadian entity (i.e., a taxpayer resident in
Canada other than a mutual fund trust, non-resident owned investment corporation, exempt corporation or
trust, or a partnership of which Canadian residents own more than 10%). End quote

Quote: Reporting Entity For the purposes of the foreign affiliate rule, a “reporting entity” is defined to be
a taxpayer resident in Canada - - etc., etc.). End quote.

Remember, in law, unless otherwise specified, an “entity” is a fictitious or artificial person.

(More on this later.)

In 1677, the Statute of Frauds was enacted in England by Queen Elizabeth I, primarily for the purpose of
putting a stop to the abusive use of assumpsit contract. That statute required that all, except very minor
contracts, be in writing and signed. A large class of contracts, such as wills, deeds, etc. had to be written,
signed, sealed, witnessed, and acknowledged (delivered.) One would expect that the converting of a
‘natural person’ into a ‘legal entity’ easily falls into the latter category. There is no reason why we
Canadians cannot use that statute for our protection. It falls within a clear interpretation of the common
law in the protection of rights, especially since the conversion of a natural person into a legal entity called
a “taxpayer” outlaws that natural person in violation of article 39 of the Magna Carta. (Please note that it
has come to my attention that the province of Manitoba recently chose to abolish the Statute of Frauds
within their laws. They used the word ‘abolish.’ The people of Manitoba were not consulted or asked if
they would like to ‘abolish’ or maintain this anciently respected Statute that is still in force in the rest of
Canada. Welcome to the country of freedom and respect for laws. Since Manitoshan’s do not have any
understanding of the importance of this statute, it would make no difference to any citizen if it was
quietly ‘abolished.’ Alex)

Regarding the belief that income tax is “voluntary” - becoming a “taxpayer” is voluntary.

If you are NOT a “taxpayer,” any compliance with the Income Tax Act of Canada is voluntary.

However, as a “taxpayer,” compliance is mandatory.

Of course, any voluntary compliance with the Income Tax Act implies that you are a “taxpayer.”

Isn’t this fun?

17
There are three major clues in the Income War Tax Act (1917) which preclude the act from applying to
Canadian citizens (especially in the Provinces) as a ‘public’ or general set of laws and regulations
requiring mandatory compliance by everyone.

Income War Tax Act, 1917 definition of “person” 2. (d) “Person” means an individual or person and any
syndicate, trust, association or other body and any body corporate, and their heirs, executors,
administrators, curators and assigns or other legal representatives of such person, according to the law of
that part of Canada to which the context extends;

Section 248, Current Income Tax Act of Canada N.B.: Sub-notes state: Derived from the Income War
Tax Act (1917). Therefore, this is an addendum to the Income War Tax Act definition. “Person,” or any
word or expression descriptive of a person, INCLUDES any body corporate and politic, and their heirs,
executors, administrators or other legal representatives of such person, according to the law of that part of
Canada to which the context extends;

1. In defining “person,” other acts and statutes clearly include “Natural Person” in
their definition when a natural human being is subject to that act. The Income Tax Act
does not. In statutory law, the term “person” usually means, and in most cases can only
mean a corporate or fictitious entity. “Individual” and “person” used in the definition
could possibly mean “natural person” - if the context would allow it, but read on...

2. The expression in the definition of “person:” “to that part of Canada to which
the context extends” would indicate that there is some part of Canada to which the
context does not extend. Could that be the Provinces? They had the exclusive right to
direct taxation according to Section 92(2) of the BNA Act in 1917, when the Income War
Tax Act was passed. Section 91 three times forbids access to the Federal Government of
exclusive authorities granted to the Provinces.

The fact that the Federal Government was not allowed to impose direct taxes was clearly addressed in the
Privy Council's decision of 1887 - Lambe vs. The Toronto Bank. Section 94 requires Provincial
legislatures to pass Federal legislation dealing with “common good” property and civil rights issues.
Remember that the original Income Tax Act was put into effect in 1919, during the time when the BNA
Act was in effect. Therefore, if the Federal Government is, and was in 1917, at least somewhat law
abiding, the income tax was/is not imposed as a ‘public,’ or generally applicable law and therefore must
be ‘private’ or specific law for some group, company or person.

3. The limiting of appeals to the Exchequer Court (subsequently ‘Tax Court’ and
now ‘Federal Court’) would be a direct violation of an ancient right of “a man's right to
his court” if Natural Persons were subject to the Income Tax Act (Section 17, Income
War Tax Act).

I have had reports recently that some versions of the Income Tax Act (All versions are by private
publishers - it is not a Government publication) have in the notes that “natural person” is construed to be
in the Income Tax Act definition of “person.” To not get tricked by this, you need to know that the only
portion of any statute that is enacted into law is the main body. Notes are not part of enacted law.

18
Second, if notes cite a court case as precedent, the decision would have been based upon the fact that a
natural person cannot be prohibited from entering into a contract, even if it were to become a “taxpayer.”
Court cases tend not to give the whole story. If proper arguments are not presented in court, then proper
arguments do not appear in the determinations made by the judge.

Third, no statute can mandate the forfeiture of Common law rights of a natural person. Therefore, even if
natural person was in the enacted body of the statute, one cannot be forced to enter into a contract.
A contract is, or can be, declared invalid if it is forced upon a natural person. The statutory
legislation on incorporation gives that same right to legal entities. To force a contract would be an act
of extortion. Therefore, if you wish to be a form of feudal serf-slave, called a "taxpayer," you are free
to do so. However, as you will learn in this course, there is an alternative.

Isn’t the Income Tax unconstitutional?

This argument put forth by many individuals and protest groups is a very important point. I will tell you
right here that the constitutionality of the income tax will not be an issue brought to the table with this
untaxing system. I have to agree that the income tax collected by the federal government is
unconstitutional, in theory. Why in theory? Because I believe that all the people who have been fighting
the government in court on its’ right to collect direct taxes from the citizens of the provinces have been
wasting their time and money. They will always lose. The federal government will always win the day in
court. If not today, then tomorrow. Here is why I believe this is so. The federal government is not
collecting a direct tax from a single citizen of the provinces of Canada. Is this confusing? Let’s break it
down. The federal government is collecting a direct tax from “taxpayers.” Who are “taxpayers?”
“Taxpayers” are legal entities. You are a ‘natural person.’ Therefore the federal government is not
collecting taxes from you as a ‘natural person.’ It is collecting taxes from an entity, which it created.
You, as the trustee of that legal entity, are required to be responsible for all actions of that legal entity.
Therefore, it’s your wallet and your property that gets collected in order to pay for the financial
obligations of the legal entity you are responsible for. The constitutionality of the income tax is not the
issue. It is not brought up anywhere in Eldon Warman’s program. It is of no relevance. When the
federal government disputes this detaxing systems validity they always argue constitutionality, which is
irrelevant to this program. (You will see this later on in the book.)

How did the government pay for services before the Income Tax?
If you have guilt feelings even thinking about getting out of paying income tax, you should remember that
the Federal Government was given the authority to create money in the BNA Act, at least up until 1931.
With that authority, it had no need to use taxation to “raise revenue.” The Federal Government was to
have the power to create new money based upon the Roman Republic's method as refined by Leibnitz of
Germany (early 1700's) and Alexander Hamilton of the early USA republic. The system was not
inflationary, as money was created to pay for items of real value (roads, and other infrastructure put into
place to enhance the peoples rights and freedoms, primarily the property rights and personal security.)
The indirect taxation power was actually the power to protect our farmers and manufacturers from foreign
“dumping.”

The Bank Act of Canada actually gives the banks of Canada the right to print money, currency, and take
over the money responsibility for Canada. They also were given ‘custody’ of the gold reserves of
19
Canada. (That’s yours and my gold, folks.) In 1931, they managed to have Canada, along with the
United States, taken off the gold standard. What does this mean? Oh, that the banks now got to keep our
gold reserves and issue us common folk worth debt based paper called ‘Canadian dollars.’

Until 1913, the banks were told that in order to be able to print money, it had to be backed by gold that
was held in trust by the banks so that Dominion notes (Canadian money) could be converted into gold on
demand by any Canadian citizen. This meant that our money was a ‘credit’ backed by gold. It had true
value. This convertibility agreement by the banks lasted from 1913 all the way to… 1914.

The Bank of Canada, just like the Federal Reserve of the United States, is a private for profit corporation,
owned and run by the banks, not the federal government. Upon completely giving the money creation
power over to the private banking institutions in 1913, the Federal Government had to resort to unlawful
revenue raising schemes to replace their lost primary source of revenue. The income tax was devised to
take usury created (basically worthless) money out of circulation. The government could borrow
worthless debt based dollars to their hearts content now. What a great way to get re-elected.

This new source of worthless money caused a 400% increase in the national debt within 3 years, and the
government was hooked along with us. What if they government did not do this? Then your money
would have become worthless 20 times faster than it already has today. What is inflation? Is it truly
prices going up? Are you sure? What if I told you that all goods and services have maintained the same
value for 200 years. They’ve never changed. Then what has changed? Did you stop to consider that
your money has actually gone down in value? That’s what inflation is. The value of your debt based
paper money going down over the years. If the government did not siphon off a large chunk of this
artificially created money through the so-called income tax, you would be buying a loaf of bread today
with $100 bills. This is not a joke. With only principal being created, and no provision for interest, the
results are devaluation of the money by using principal to pay interest. The idea of paying your Visa Card
with your Master Card doesn't work for very long.

The only reason for inflation is if the government (read banks) prints more paper (money) then the Gross
Domestic Product output of the country. As long as more money is created than the output of value in the
economy, the result is inflation of that money. If by some miracle, the banks created only enough money
to keep pace with the GDP, we would never have inflation. However, it’s not good business these days
for banks to not print enough money for their needs. The extra money they print then gets known as
interest. This is how banks make their profits. Create money out of thin air, loan it out, and charge
interest. It’s the government’s job to keep a lid on inflation by skimming peoples money away from them
with the so-called income tax. As long as the government doesn’t interfere with the banks business of
making money off the backs of people, everyone’s happy, right?

(This explanation of macroeconomics can become very complicated. Suffice to say that researching the
books listed at the end can offer the full explanation. Some of the information in this book may also help
you understand this better. Alex)

20
 WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT?

If you feel that you were fraudulently tricked or coerced into becoming a legal entity called a “taxpayer,”
you can void the supposed contract by constructive notice to the Minister of National Revenue in Ottawa.

You must send it in a manner that verifies it was received by the office of the minister with delivery
verification (signature from person accepting the letter.) Keep copies of everything.

If you do use the post office, keep your registered mail receipt. On that receipt is a toll-free number.
After 5 working days of sending your notice, call that number and request a hard copy of the receiving
signature at the other end. There is a $5 charge for this. It costs around $4.75 to send a registered letter to
Ottawa.

A constructive notice is a form of trespass warning. It is your refutation to the Federal Government
showing that no lawful contract does in fact exist, or has ever existed. However, should the Crown bring
a charge against you at a future date (only an extremely rare possibility) based upon their assumption that
there was in fact a contract, your constructive notice becomes your defense of ‘fraud committed by the
Crown” for which they have been served notice. They have only one trick in their bag - the
“assumpsit contract” or “Presumption.” And they use this extensively in their income tax
administration tactics.

This is not an income tax issue, but a contract issue.

Assumpsit is an instrument within the broader concept of “PRESUMPTION.” This is an accepted method
of establishing responsibility for a debt or duty within the Common Law. Presumption is obviously very
misused and maliciously used by the bodies politic, while it is very misunderstood by or absent from the
knowledge of the average Joe on the street.

If you have already quit filing or if you intend to do so, YOU MUST VOID THE SUPPOSED
CONTRACT THAT MADE YOU A TAXPAYER or you will, or could be subject to Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency (CCRA) action against you. You must also be aware and ready to counteract all
administrative and legal tricks that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) may try and use to
bring you ‘back into the fold.’ I will show you how to VOID any correspondence a little further down.

Getting out from under the income tax scam in this manner is not an act of tax evasion or
tax avoidance. You simply are no longer subject to the tax.

As each supposed contract is a result of the individual act of filing an income tax return, the undoing has
to be an individual act, so don't expect some court precedent to alleviate you of the income tax burden.

You must do it! No one else can do it for you.

21
1. A letter from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) in which they try to obfuscate the
meaning of “person” and proceed to play upon the term “resident” will arrive in about 4 to 6
weeks. This letter is shown later in the program. You may find it extremely interesting to know
that nowhere in the response letter will they dispute your natural person status or your statements
regarding contract. The only arguments will refer to matters of no relevance to this program,
such as constitutionality.

2. As an intimidation tactic, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) will attempt to derail
you by stating that they are not allowing your exempt status. You are not asking for an “exempt
status. You have declared to them that the tax is not applicable to you. They gain their authority
from the Income Tax Act, to which you are not subject. Therefore such statements by them are
meaningless. They do their best to confuse one by the devious wording of the definition of
‘person.’ They would have you believe that the standard legal definition applies rather than a
special definition originating in the 1917 Income War Tax Act. The usual letter has some
meaningless drivel about court cases which are either irrelevant, or which have been improperly
argued - such as the use of the “constitution” argument.

3. Treat ALL letters From Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) as Official Court
Documents.

4. If you accept them at face value, and without an appropriate negative response, they can be used
against you as evidence under presumption. Therefore, this letter, and other letters, demands and
assessments from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) must be voided and answered
appropriately. The appropriate response will be described in another section of this course.
Return this letter to the sending Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) office with a
copy to the Minister of National Revenue. Keep copies for yourself of all letters, properly voided.

5. If they tell you they are going to file a return for you, send them a refusal demand along with a
copy to the Minister. This may even happen one or two years after your original constructive
notice was sent in. A refusal of their ‘offer’ will follow exactly the same ‘void’ response as you
have been doing to date.

6. Return ALL Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) correspondence properly voided, as
the contents may be notification of a third party demand served upon someone who has your
money - something you need to know to make a proper response. This is one of those places
where they use “assumpsit.” If you do not refute their statements within a reasonable time period
- usually within 30 days, they then assume that you have accepted their statements and a judge
will - using common law precedent - hold you responsible for those assumptions or presumptions
should you be brought into court.

If one is afraid of the potential hassles and the possible unlawful seizure of some or all of your worldly
possessions (if you haven't taken proper measures to protect them), the best bet is to continue as a loyal
sheep and enjoy your fleecing by giving your “fair share” to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA).

You may resign as a ‘taxpayer’ and continue to file an income tax return and pay income tax. Print
‘restricted’ under your SIN# and add the phrase “without prejudice, natural person, all rights reserved”
after your signature.
22
This may get you out from under Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) jurisdiction (audits,
penalties, fines.) However, this procedure is certainly NOT recommended because your actions may be
used against you in the future. A clean break is the most desirable solution.

23
 EMPLOYEE = SLAVE
According to the Income Tax Act definitions, “employment” is a position of “servitude.” A ‘servant’ is
one who has pledged feudal servitude (a form of slavery) for the right to live on some ‘lord's’ lands or
someone who must work off a debt. The terms ‘Employer and employee’ are synonymous with ‘master
and servant.’ The master/servant contractual laws and obligations arise out of the feudal system of the
Middle Ages.

An ‘employer’ is a person who ‘rents’ slaves from the Government. For that privilege, the employer
must perform certain duties and responsibilities. These include reporting employee compensation (T-4
slips to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), withholding taxes and deducting Canada
Pension, and paying ‘contributions’ on behalf of the employee. Employee compensation supposedly
belongs to the Government, thus the reporting requirement. How much the employee gets to keep for his
own use depends on his income tax return in April. The feudal system was abolished in the 39 Articles
signed by Queen Elizabeth I in the mid 1600's.

Is ‘employee,’ therefore, the description of your relationship to the company with whom you work and
draw a paycheck? Or do you exchange your skill and/or labour for a contractually agreed upon amount of
money? Are you working off a debt or are you paid after you perform? If you are paid after you perform,
you are not an employee according to the Income Tax Act. You are a ‘contractor’ regardless what some
Judge or Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) agent may tell you or the person for whom you
work. ‘Employer’ and ‘Employee’ are used elsewhere in this paper in the generic meaning. The terms
should not be used in any correspondence to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA).

An ‘employee’ is an entity created by government. Do you think you have any rights as an ‘employee?’
Try to see how easy it is to stand up for your rights as a natural person when you work as an ‘employee’
for a company (which is another legal entity created by government.) Filling out your TD-1 form the way
you are told to do so is a covert contract between you and CCRA making you their entity to be controlled
as they say. Try explaining to your ‘employer’ that you are a natural person who is not subject to income
tax and you do not wish to have so-called income tax taken at source off your compensation. Watch the
fear rise up in that persons eyes. A full explanation of the TD-1 hidden contract will be provided later.

What do you do when a ‘slave’ gets out of line? Surely you discipline them. That’s exactly what to
expect when you try and stand up for your inherent rights as a natural person while you are still defined as
an ‘employee.’ An ‘employee’ of one company in Vancouver even received a letter from a large legal
firm on behalf of their employer that stated in part. “It is suggested that you take steps to ensure that all
employees fill out their TD-1 in the requested manner and if they refuse to do so, you should take steps to
discipline them. (Italics mine. Alex.) The requested manner referred to here is to fill out their TD-1 in a
way that makes them a legal entity without rights and makes that ‘employee’ entity subject to a hidden
contract with CCRA. Welcome to the free country of Canada.

24
 The dreaded TD-1 employee form
Does it remove your rights without your knowledge?

Notice the request to put your last name in

capitals letters. First name last, then
“usual” names. For those who guessed
that this makes them a fictional or legal
entity, go to the head of the class! And
we’ve only just begun here.

There are two parties now named on this form.

You didn’t notice ‘Revenue Canada’ written
above your name? What does that make it? For
those who said, “a Contract,” another point and
you get a gold star! You just signed a contract
without your knowledge. And bonus points if
you just realized that you signed it as a ‘legal
entity’ which puts you under Admiralty Law.

Bonus question: When you put your signature below, did you
sign it as a natural person or an entity? Of course, as an entity!
Just curious, if this is supposed to be a form for your employers
eyes only, why is there no place to write their name on it? Why
is that the only other party on this contract is Revenue Canada.
Do you suppose this is another form of entrapment from our
honest government leaders? Nah, they wouldn’t do that to you.

Now let’s see how a lawfully untaxed employee would have filled out their TD-1…
25
 What did our lawfully untaxed natural person do? Why, they
wrote their name correctly as a sovereign natural person. (Who
says you have to write it the way you’re told?) They also wrote in
the name of their employer in the top right corner. This makes it
a contract between their employer and themselves, giving the
employer permission on what to withhold for taxes. And it seems
they also crossed off Revenue Canada, removing it as a party to
this contract. Now look at the SIN. It’s in brackets. If you said
this means it isn’t allowed to be used as a ‘taxpayer number’ you
get extra points. You’re catching on fast here!

A sovereign natural person who has

served constructive notice is not a
‘taxpayer’ anymore and is therefore
not subject to income tax. The only
correct amounts to fill in are “n/a”
because withholding doesn’t apply to
someone who is not a taxpayer.

This sovereign natural person signed their name correctly.

They clearly state they are not an entity. And to make sure
this is very clear, they added the statements below: “Natural
person. All rights reserved. Without prejudice.”

Are you starting to get the picture now?

26
 YES! IT TAKES GUTS AND A FIGHTING SPIRIT!
The TD1 is an “express permission” to turn over your property (wages) to the Receiver General of
Canada. As the employer normally uses it, it is considered legal for a “taxpayer” as the income of a
“taxpayer” totally belongs to the Federal Government.

However, for a natural person of commoner status, it is not a lawful document. To make it ‘lawful’ place
the name of the Employer on the top of the form. Sign it and have someone witness your signature. (You
are advised to take it home, and bring it in, completed, at a later time.) Try to get it time/date /received
stamped or have a witness go to the payroll office with you. Keep a copy... The TD1 is for the “eyes of
the employer only.” It is not a document to be turned over to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA). See the sample on the previous pages for a fuller understanding of this information.

If you fill out a TD-1 in the manner that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) ‘suggests’ that
you do, you are caught up in multiple traps set to remove your rights from you. In this research into the
TD-1, numerous devious legalese traps have been discovered that are designed to inadvertently ensnare
the unwary signers of these forms. Since you are voluntarily signing this form, these legal traps may be
used against you. However, it may not be too late if you discover this after the fact. You have the legal
right to change your TD-1 information anytime your circumstances change. The specific remedies to this
situation are available in this course.

In filling out the TD1, put “Not Applicable” or “n/a” in all credit boxes and Exempt (E) in the deduction
box (under total credit box). Should the Payroll clerk refuse to accept your TD1 “exempt” on the basis
that you do not qualify for such status (based upon their assumed understanding of the tax laws), insist
that you are not a ‘taxpayer” and for him/her to withhold contrary to your expressed wishes would
constitute “theft by conversion’ (Section 332, Criminal Code of Canada) and “criminal breach of trust”
(Section 337, CCC. Criminal acts subject up to 14 years imprisonment each.) Note: There have been
several changes in the numbering of sections of the Criminal Code in the last few years; so, if you can't
find the above noted offences under the numbers given, just look under Part VII - "Offences Against
Rights Of Property."

The above scenario may not always be the wisest course of action to alleviate you from under this abuse
of your rights. If you do work as an ‘employee,’ your rights can be easily abused with little recourse
except to change to a new employer. This is not a reasonable option for many people.

Should the employer (payroll clerk) insist on contacting Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)
and asking the following question: “Are we required to withhold?” Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA)'s answer will be: “Yes, according to Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, you are required to
withhold income taxes.” Analysis: Section 153 requires an employer to withhold according to
PRESCRIBED RULES and to act as a trustee for the Crown. The prescribed rules are the Income Tax
Regulations. There is nothing in those regulations allowing the employer or Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency (CCRA) to determine or change your tax status or alter your TD1.

There needs to be a reminder here that:

(1.) No bureaucrat's opinion (regardless of his/her title) is of any legal value in a court (unless that
bureaucrat is an attorney representing that agency of government).

27
(2.) Since phone conversations are usually not recorded (at least on your side), statements by
representatives of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) over the telephone cannot be verified
later - have them put any statements or demands on paper. It is not uncommon for them to make threats
or state outright lies in phone conversations.

SECTION 153.1 INCOME TAX ACT WITHHOLDING states:

Every PERSON paying at any time in a taxation year (a) salary or wages or other remuneration, (b) etc.
etc. shall deduct or withhold therefrom such amounts as may be determined IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PRESCRIBED RULES and shall, at such time as may be prescribed, remit that amount to the Receiver
General on account of the payee's tax for the year under this Part or Part XI.3, as the case may be.
Note: Remember, in the Income Tax Act, a "person" is not a natural person of commoner status, but is a
"legal entity". Withholding is in accordance with prescribed rules - the Income Tax Regulations. Section
104 states that if an "exempt" TD1 is filed with the employer, no tax is to be withheld.

A Declaration of Rights at Law stating your natural person of commoner status should stop unlawful
withholding and protect the employer from harassment. This document needs to be sworn under oath by a
commissioner for oaths or by a notary public.

If your employer (the person with whom you exchange your skill and labour) insists on calling Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), ask him/her to phrase their question thusly: "Are we required
to observe an employee's TD1 `exempt' which he filed under Section 104(1) of the Income Tax
Regulations?” Even though the employer may not accept your "exempt" TD1 and contact Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) has no legal
authority whatsoever to change your TD1 or order the employer to ignore it.

If the employer does withhold, it is a relatively simple matter to file a suit in "Small Claims Court."
(This level of court is the least expensive and most resembles the Common Law Court of Common Pleas.
If you are over the statutory suit limit, split your claims to match the limits.) Name the person who signs
your paycheque as "defendant" (name, acting as president, payroll supervisor, etc. of company X.)
A Company is a dead person and dead people cannot commit crimes. (Such Common Law precepts are
used when it pleases the black-robed thugs.) If you file your claim against the employer (company) and
not a specifically named person, you are sure to lose.

Add "in tort at law" to the word Claim in the heading of the small claims form. Declare "I am not a
"taxpayer" and cite the wrongful act as "theft" and "criminal breach of trust." It doesn't have to be
a "hostile" action. Recently, an Alberta Provincial Court judge dismissed such a case in a chambers
hearing procedure in which he would not let the claimant present evidence of the validity of his case. The
suit was against a company owner, who's lawyer took the argument to a chambers hearing with the claim
that the claimant was a union member (member of a Roman corporation) and Section 227 of the Income
Tax Act which is discussed elsewhere in this paper. Some stringent disciplinary measures are obviously
becoming apparent of need for these black robed thugs. However, if you get to court, and the court finds
in your favour, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) has no claim against an employer. (Not
that they could anyway, as they can't force anyone to commit a crime.) If your employer does not attend
the trial, you should be able to get a default judgement. The employer can reclaim payment if they've
made one in your name. There is an appropriate Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) form.

28
 DEALING WITH POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
Once you've resigned as a “taxpayer,” there are three problem areas that may arise.

These are: (1) The TD1 and withholding of your money by an employer.
(2) Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) "third party demands."
(3) A charge of "failure to file" a tax return.

To ‘drop out’ of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)'s extortion racket, it is easiest if
you are, or can work as, an independent contractor or have your own business. If you incorporate or
become limited liability (Ltd.) you lose flexibility. If you are only incorporated for tax purposes, you can
liberate yourself and your company by changing to a proprietorship. If you need to have a limited liability
company, take a ‘reasonable’ salary for your labour and skills which you use in running the company and
place an ‘exempt’ TD1 and a “Declaration Of Rights At Law” into your company files for the accountant
/auditor.

To understand the situation of a limited liability company; a more in depth analysis may be in order.
A limited liability company is a Roman person created by government. Roman persons are discussed
elsewhere in this program. The rationale within the Common Law is that a Roman person is either a child
or an imbecile and therefore it requires a guardian or executor to run its affairs. The C.E.O., the chief
executive officer, is the guardian and is held accountable for performance by the trust laws, plus any other
rules and regulations the true owner/creator may require of him/her. The commonly understood to be
owner(s) are, in fact, only possessors. True ownership remains with the creator (the government.) As
C.E.O. of a limited liability company, you could also take only $1.00 salary and take the rest of your pay
as a contractor consultant. That method would eliminate the annual T4 report on your pay and all
withholding hassles.

If you are the possessor and/or C.E.O. of a limited company and you are also a “taxpayer,” you have a
problem. Returning to the status of a natural person can improve your life tremendously but you can still
have problems with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) as C.E.O. and/or possessor of the
company. This is the reason why it is recommended that you cancel the limited liability Company and
return to a sole proprietorship. If you own a sole proprietorship company, as a natural person, that
company becomes your private chattel property; and as such, is not open to inspection by anyone, except
by a proper search warrant arising from suspected common law criminal activity. Your Common Law
privacy rights remain intact. However, if you truly require a license to engage in a business, such as
selling controlled substances, you would have to make your books available to the licensing agency.

The collection of G.S.T by a natural person's sole proprietorship company is optional. In the contract
with the Government to be a tax collector, the benefit is being reimbursed for G.S.T. paid on wholesale
items. If you are a mostly service company, or deal in goods that are mostly G.S.T. exempt, there isn't
much point in taking a G.S.T. number and being a tax collector. Remember that the $30,000 gross
income rule applies as a mandatory rule only as a condition for possessing or managing a limited liability
company. If you have to purchase large amounts of G.S.Taxable inventory at wholesale, you may still
wish to consider the competitive edge versus what is lost by not getting the G.S.T. rebate.

29
If you work for a company or the Government, the withholding problem can be a bit more difficult.
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)'s propaganda (letters, guides and pamphlets) contains lies
and slick misinformation which portrays meanings based upon their desired (devious) projected
understanding of the Income Tax Act. Arrogance, ignorance, fear and/or stupidity commonly prevail in
company management and payroll departments. Being frequently counseled by ignorant and/or arrogant
accountants and lawyers, acting in complicity with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), they
deprive you of the fruits of your labours by continuing to withhold so-called taxes against your express
demand to not do so.

One enterprising lawfully untaxed person chose to go the small claims route and discussed the situation
with his sympathetic company president in advance. The company was concerned about the ramifications
to them if they did not listen to demands from CCRA. The two agreed that the employee would go to
small claims court and the president would simply not show up, thereby getting a default judgement.
Without two parties, the judgement automatically defaults to the party that showed up. Now the president
would be able to tell CCRA that he was going to comply with a court order demanding all the money to
be paid back to the employee. And unless CCRA could provide another court document disputing his
(which it can’t), he was not going to go against a court order to satisfy CCRA. End of problem.

NOTE: As things now are, there is very little chance of prevailing in any court in Canada on income tax
issues. The trick is to make it very unlikely for Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) to want to
pursue you in the court system. Putting the issue of your common-law rights before the court system is a
good way to create potential embarrassment for both Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) and
the federal government. It is worth a try to use the following methods as a remedy but the only thing
gained may be your education on the sorry state of Canada, and how far down the slippery slope we have
descended toward complete despotism in this country. All courts are apparently operating in Admiralty
Law and Jurisdiction, although the judges will call it anything but. Admiralty Law imposed upon the
land is despotism. In the 1930’s, an extraordinary meeting was called between top federal and
provincial judges and the federal government. The meeting was to make clear to these judges and to the
ones who would follow that the use of Admiralty law in our courts would be called anything but that. Use
any other term to describe this but under no circumstances were they to call it Admiralty Law. These
judges and politicians did come up with a solution. The re-named ‘so-called law’ was to be given the
name “Statutory Law.” Statutory Law is exactly the same as Admiralty Law or Law Maritime. You are
guilty until you prove yourself innocent and your rights are suspended under this form of so-called law.
Alex. END NOTE.

Should the judge refuse to hear your case, or plays games, see the next page for information on how to
file a "Common Law suit." Don't let the judge get away with the excuse that your matter is a Federal
issue and is not in his/her jurisdiction. This is not an income tax matter, this is a property dispute under
common-law. Property rights are a provincial matter. Common Law suits are pretty simple; but it is
worthwhile giving the Provincial Court judges a chance to redeem some of their so-called honour in small
claims court.

30
 DEAD END OR CHALLENGE?
The employer or their lawyer may file a motion for dismissal of your case based upon jurisdiction arising
out of the Income Tax Act Section 227(1) which says: "No action lies against any person for withholding
or deducting any sum of money in compliance or intended compliance with this Act." Your answer to this
is (a) The Income Tax Act and any of its provisions does not apply to you, if you've revoked the contract
making you a "taxpayer." (b) An employer cannot comply, or intend to comply with the Act if they do not
know what Section 153(1) of the Act and Section 104(1) of the Income Tax Regulation (prescribed rules)
says. As of this date, judges have not been allowing the person who has filed the claim to present this, or
any, argument in defense of their rights in a hearing to dismiss the case.

There is a provision in law that "a man has a right to his court," and that "a man has a right to a fair and
adequate hearing." These rights are the cornerstone of any proper justice system. Therefore, these judges
are showing themselves to be arch thugs and traitors to the Canadian people - as we have asserted
elsewhere in this paper, by their dismissal of civil claims brought before the court prior to their having
been heard in an open court. Anyone who would believe these "black robed thugs" are "honourable"
people has to be exhibiting their gross ignorance or "idiotic" IQ. Judges also often use the "bluster"
"fallacy of philosophy" to impose their argument on "the peasants" who would dare be so bold as to put
forth a reasonable defense of their stand on an issue. We are in dire need of a system of control of these
traitors. I make this observation about judges from actual experience in dealing with them and by having
observed others in their attempts to deal with them. Also, they (the defendant and their lawyers) may
base their dismissal request on the fact that you are a union member. This ploy is based upon the Roman
personhood of a union. The company (supposedly, in this figment of imagination) employs a union
member (body part), not a natural person. Your argument: As a union member, your only relationship in
the union-management collective bargaining agreement is in the categories of gross pay, working
standards and conditions and conflicts causing litigation arising out of those factors.

A tort against you personally by a natural person acting as a company officer falls under common law
jurisdiction and not under contracts litigation. The unauthorized reduction of one's gross pay is not in the
jurisdiction of the union-management contract.

A criminal complaint could also be filed (against a natural person only - supervisor, or whomever) should
they get nasty with you. (Don't hold your breath on this one - Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA) has the Provincial Justice Departments under their full control.) Section 773, Form 2
(Information) (Criminal Code of Canada) is used. The Criminal Code is available at libraries. You will
find "theft" under Section 332 and "breach of trust" under Section 337. (The numbers may have changed
in recent re-writing of the Criminal Code.) The Information is filed with any Justice of the Peace at any
nearby Provincial court. You may get some resistance from the Justice of the Peace. Therefore, you may
have to remind him/her that they are required by law to accept your information. Of course, that doesn’t
mean that the Crown Attorney might not reject it. Also, it has been my experience that the police or
RCMP will not accept a criminal complaint against Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)
employees or against any company or person complying with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA) demands. Justices of the Peace and Court Clerks have been refusing to swear or file such
paperwork under the same circumstances.
31
Alberta doesn't have a Grand Jury, which was a freeman's main line of defense against despotism.
Therefore, should the court or the Government justice system deprive you of your right to justice in
stopping this form of theft, extortion and fraud, you have the right under the Common law to use that
force necessary (including the inflicting of death) against a thief to recover your property and to defend
yourself against harm or retaliation from that offending person. You have a common law right to defend
yourself and to determine the punishment. Punishment for a crime committed cannot be excessive;
however, an estimation of the retaliatory potential makes what might constitute "excessive' to be very
vague. If you can't get anywhere in "Small Claims court" as far as retrieving unlawfully withheld salary,
the "Claim at Law" may work. It has been very successfully used in California and other States. The "At
Law Claim" is a purely common-law method of getting your "day in court." Unless it gets to a jury trial,
there are no criminal penalties or punishments involved, only retrieval of lost money or property. I
haven't been able to contact anyone with a handle on the total procedure; however, I offer what I can
recall: (Propria persona means in full Christian name without title.)

As I remember, it works this way. First you must have served the offending natural person with a
trespass warning (constructive notice) and demand for recompense, with sufficient time (10 to 20 days) to
respond.

Second, if their response is negative, you proceed by filing a claim at a court convenient to you. You
name the Provincial court on the top and make a line for Case number. Next comes Defendant:_____, in
propria persona; followed by Plaintiff:____, in propria persona. Following that comes the title: Claim at
Law. Then comes the body of the claim: Start with your full Christian name, a freeman in propria persona
not under any known contract with the Federal Government of Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency (CCRA) or the Bank of Canada making him subject to the Income Tax Act Of Canada. He lives
at (city or town). The second paragraph states the Defendant (Then full name followed by the words "in
propria persona" who lives at:_____ did on or about (date) commit an act of breach of trust and theft by
conversion against the Plaintiff in the amount of $___. Third paragraph: Plaintiff gives 30 days to the
Defendant to produce a proper answer to this claim. (The only proper answers are 1. Pay up or 2. A
written demand for a jury trial served upon the sheriff.) It is best that you do not publicize this as lawyers
and judges may try to throw out the case. If they try, file an amended claim naming the lawyer(s) and
judge involved as defendants. Their houses are sometimes easier to find for lien purposes.

The claim has to be filed by the Clerk of the Court - which may be an obstacle. If refused, have the claim
published in official notices in the appropriate newspaper in your area. After the 30 days, file a default
judgement with the Clerk of the Court. A judge's signature is not required. You may have to use force on
the Clerk if they flatly refuse your filing. However, that is up to you. Since you give 30 days for the
proper answer, you have to have a "true copy" served upon the defendant - preferably by a bailiff service,
and make sure they have the full 30 days.

32
 THIRD PARTY DEMAND GARNISHMENTS
For someone who is not a "taxpayer," the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) "third
party demand" (Form T1118B) is not a lawful garnishment unless it is accompanied by a court
order and judgement of a court of proper jurisdiction.

However, most employers believe this to be a lawful document and will comply with it. For them to do
so, especially against your specific demand that they not do so, constitutes "theft by conversion" and
"criminal breach of trust" and a suit is in order. The Income Tax Act would seem to indicate that Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) (the Minister) could just file a Statement of Claim and proceed to
garnishee. (Remember that is against a "taxpayer," who you are not.) The criminal act is committed by the
person who complies with such a "request," not by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) --
(who are frauds and extortionists protected by the Judiciary against prosecution.)

For Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) to get a lawful garnishment if you have properly
resigned as a taxpayer, there would have to be a proper courtroom hearing in which you (preferably), or
your lawyer, were present for defense. To be lawful, there would then have to be a judgement and court
order attached to the garnishee letter. Providing a letter to your employer and banker regarding their legal
obligations would be in order if you suspect a possible Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)
garnishment (third party demand). Bank accounts do not require a SIN#, especially if you don't receive
interest. There may be some protection from Third Party demands for bank accounts without a SIN#.
However, the likelihood of keeping a quiet little bank account in Canada away from the eyes of Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) is practically zero. The banks are very happy to comply with the
demands, lawful or unlawful, that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) makes upon them.
Later in this book, you will discover specific cases that were publicized regarding the Royal Bank and
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) in Alberta that will shock you. When you are not a
taxpayer anymore, you best option would be to secure an offshore account. If you are not a taxpayer,
there is no reporting requirement that you are subject to.

Real-life example

Another ‘employee’ found out through some good research that there are very specific guidelines
involved in garnisheeing a persons wages that is not generally known to employees or their employers.
She wrote a letter to CCRA demanding answers to her questions and all she received was a deafening
silence. Here is the letter with the personal information removed. You can find similar back up
information at your local court house. I know first hand the pain and suffering our government cause it’s
own people. Situations like this one are what drive me personally to dedicate the thousands of hours I do
to help as many people as I can to take their lives and freedoms back once again.

33
January 13, 2000

Dear Sir/Madam:

I came across something quite by accident and found it kind of interesting and would like to know what
procedures Revenue Canada follows as far as third party demands go. The points in BOLD are the ones I
find most interesting and would like some clarification on. I am only asking for these answers because my
husband is on the other end of a third party demand. We only came across this information (outlined
below) during our recent trip to the court house while seeking out information on how to sue someone in
Small Claims Court. When reading the pamphlets provided we came across this information that hit real
close to home, a situation that we are currently dealing with, and wondered why these procedures are not
followed by Revenue Canada involving their third party demands.
Below is an excerpt taken from a pamphlet we picked up at the courthouse.

Here is how the procedure and recourse is laid out for Small Claims Court, (as written in booklet 6 (pg7)
of Small Claims Court in the Province of British Columbia):
**********************************************
Garnishment
What is it?
If you have a judgement (a court order) requiring someone to pay you money, the law provides you
with a tool called "garnishment" to use if the debtor does not pay. Garnishment is a way of getting your
hands on money that someone else owes to the debtor, before it goes to the debtor. Most often, people
garnish wages or bank accounts. Because this is quite a drastic measure, the rules are very strict and you
have to follow them exactly. The rules for garnishment are actually contained in the Court Order
Enforcement Act and they apply to enforcement of judgements from any court.

How do I do it?
The procedure in a typical case is this:
1. You prepare an affidavit in support of a garnishing order after judgement. This form tells:
a) the details of the court order you are enforcing
b) the amount still owing
c) that someone else (the garnishee) owes money to the debtor
d) that the garnishee is in British Columbia, and
e) the address of the garnishee.
2. You fill out a garnishing order.
3. You file the affidavit and garnishing order in the court registry. There is a fee for having someone
in the registry swear the affidavit and there is a fee for filing the garnishing order. The registrar inserts the
amount of costs you may be allowed to collect, signs the order and gives back to you copies you will need
for service.
4. You serve the garnishing order on the garnishee (that is, the bank, or the employer, or whoever you
have named in the order).
5. The garnishee pays the money to the court (if there is any money).
6. If there is any money paid into court you serve the garnishing order on the debtor and file an affidavit
of service.

All the rules have to be carefully followed. For example, if you don't have the name of the garnishee
exactly right, the garnishee can legitimately ignore the order. If you are garnishing a bank account,
you have to know the branch where the debtor banks. A joint account cannot be garnished.

34
If you are garnishing wages, you must know the correct and legal name of the employer, the address and
the pay date. The date on which the affidavit is sworn must be within seven days before the pay date.
You can serve the documents on the garnishee and the debtor either personally or by "registered" mail.
(Be sure to ask the post office for an acknowledgment of receipt so you'll have the proof you need). The
usual practice is to serve the garnishee first (so that the debtor doesn't remove the funds) and then serve
the debtor if money is paid into court. Unfortunately the garnishing procedure is a one-time measure
that attaches only the money that is in the bank account when it is served or that is owed to the employee
within seven days of when the affidavit in support of the garnishing order was sworn. If you want to
repeat the procedure you have to obtain a new garnishing order and go through all the steps again.
What can I do if money is being garnished? (What we 'should' have been able to do had there been a court
order judgement)

You should immediately do one of two things. Either contact the creditor and try to work out a payment
schedule that you can live with, or ask the registrar of the court to schedule a payment hearing so that
you can ask a judge to order a payment schedule. If a payment schedule is in effect, then the
creditor cannot garnish again, as long as you are meeting the terms of the schedule. If the
garnishment means a real financial hardship for you, you can ask the court or registrar to cancel the
garnishing order and return the money. If that happens, a payment schedule will be ordered. You can
also ask a judge to increase the amount of your wages that is exempt from garnishment - up to 90 per cent
of the net amount.

***********************************************

My husband was not presented with any kind of court order, all that was presented was a third party
demand for his wages to his employer. Doesn't Revenue Canada have to follow the Law just like the rest
of us? In the literature above it states that, "the rules for garnishment are actually contained in the Court
Order Enforcement Act and they apply to enforcement of judgements from any court." Is Revenue
Canada running their own court and ultimate judgements against taxpayers? Where's the judgement (court
order) they were to supply to us? Shouldn't Revenue Canada being following the law and procedures
everyone, including the honest Joe, has to go by?

Recently, Revenue Canada issued a new third party demand, upgrading from the last one we have been
following for the past two and a half to three years. Once again, no one (employer or employee) received
a court order. It also states that (if there was a court order judgement), If you are garnishing wages, you
must know the correct and legal name of the employer, the address and the pay date. The date on
which the affidavit is sworn must be within seven days before the pay date.

This new third party demand was sent to his employer two days before his next pay cheque was issued. If
there had been a court order this pay cheque would have remained the same, with the previous amount
taken off.

This recent upgrade has put us in real financial hardship. We have recently received a foreclosure notice
from the bank on our house, we can barely keep food in the house, let alone pay our other bills (heat,
lights, phone, etc). You are taking food from my children's mouths and the only explanation I get is, from
one Revenue Canada collector is, based on his (my husband's income) there is no reason he cannot afford
an extra 30% taken off his pay cheques. This is ludicrous and I cannot see anyone, Revenue Canada
included, being without a heart! He is presently bringing home between $700 and $800 a pay period that
works out to $1400 and $1600 a month. Our mortgage and bank loan in its self comes to $1600 a month!!
That's his whole pay! Where are we supposed to get the money to buy food and keep the lights and the
35
heat on in this house!!?

You think that the only people that wants or needs money from us is 'just' Revenue Canada?? My husband
works his butt off to support his family, to keep food in the fridge and a roof over our heads, but as late
the only people benefiting from all his hard work is Revenue Canada. If there were a court order
judgement given to us through the courts as stated above, maybe we could find some relief from this third
party demand. Let me refresh your memory as to what is stated above, (I've highlighted the parts that
should have applied to us in bold would there have been a court order), it says,

"You should immediately do one of two things. Either contact the creditor or try to work out a payment
schedule that you can live with, or ask the registrar of the court to schedule a payment hearing so
that you can ask a judge to order a payment schedule. If a payment schedule is in effect, then the
creditor cannot garnish again, as long as you are meeting the terms of the schedule. If the
garnishment means a real financial hardship for you, you can ask the court or registrar to cancel
the garnishing order and return the money. If that happens, a payment schedule will be ordered.
You can also ask a judge to increase the amount of your wages that is exempt from garnishment -
up to 90 per cent of the net amount.

Let me also point out that it states that "if a previous payment schedule is in effect the creditor 'cannot'
garnish again, as long as you are meeting the terms of the schedule". We were on a payment schedule,
one that we have been paying for 2 1/2 to 3 years without fail. We were doing just fine on that payment
schedule, (paying $200 bi-weekly) at least we were able, for the most part, to keep up with other bill
payments and keep food in our cupboards. It was still tight but at least we could make our mortgage
payments and bank loan. But when Revenue Canada upped it to 30%, on top of regular taxes, we were
hooped!

Is Revenue Canada purposely pushing us to claim bankruptcy!! You think its fair to us for you to push us
to bankruptcy, to lose our house, our car, everything we worked so hard to get, for you?? You are wrong!
It won't happen no matter how hard you push. I know that if Revenue Canada had to go through the court
system like everyone else, we wouldn't be in this mess. We would still be on the same $200 bi-weekly
payment schedule as before, because the 'court' would have been able to see that we could not afford the
extra 30% you (Revenue Canada) so arrogantly assumed we could pay without a problem had there been
a court order.

Doesn't everyone, whether in government (Revenue Canada), or whomever, don't we all have to follow
the same procedures (to get the same results) as everyone else? Why does Revenue Canada get special
treatment in this area by not providing the proper documents regarding a Requirement to Pay (to a
garnishee)?

I definitely think we got the short end of the stick and I would like an explanation as to how and why
Revenue Canada seems to think they are above the Law by not following the same procedures of a
garnishment as I would have to do. We were honest tax paying citizens and this is the kind of treatment
we get! It's not right and I would like some answers please.

I will be looking forward to your prompt reply,

Thank You,
(name withheld for privacy)

36
 EMPLOYERS LETTER TO CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY (CCRA)

Should your employer (or other company or person holding your money or property) receive a T1118B
(third party demand for your wages or other money) and if they are co-operative, do the following. Have
them send a letter along with a copy of your "Declaration Of Rights At Law" immediately, stating: "In
reference to your form T1118B to us demanding we turn over wages or other money owed to Mr./Ms
XXXX, we have on file from Mr./Ms XXXX a Declaration Of Rights At Law (copy enclosed) declaring
that he/she is not subject to the Income Tax Act or Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA). We
believe, therefore, that we would be subject to criminal charges for theft and breach of trust should we
honour your demand regarding Mr./Ms XXXX unless we are presented with a court order; or at least a
legal opinion of an attorney representing the Federal Government of Canada as to the invalidity of
Mr./Ms XXXX's Declaration Of Rights At Law. We will wait 10 days for your answer, after which, if no
answer is forthcoming from you, we will assume that Mr./Ms XXXX's Declaration of Rights at Law is
valid and we must respect his/her rights."

If they are not co-operative, you will have to serve them (double register) a "constructive notice"
addressed to the person directly responsible with complying with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA)'s demand.

Remember the Nuremberg Trials whereby a Canadian judge mouthed the decision that "I was just
carrying out orders" was not a defense for committing a criminal act.

The constructive notice would be a personalized Declaration of Rights at Law with a demand for
reimbursement of property turned over to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), plus a cease
and desist order. If you are really serious about putting a stop to acts of theft against yourself and
recovering your stolen property - if that has happened - you must take what is necessary of three steps:

1. You must serve the offender with a trespass warning, if there is sufficient time and warning
before he/she commits the act.

2. You must attempt to use the government justice system to lay criminal charges and to use
government civil court procedures to recover your losses. You are advised to have a willing
witness (or better - witnesses) go along with you when you attempt to file information with the
police or Justice of the Peace (the only process of filing a criminal charge in Canada these days.)
If they refuse, your witness would compose an affidavit, stating the details of the conversation
and sign it under oath with a Commissioner or Court Clerk. A tape recorder, openly used, would
also be helpful.

3. If you are refused access to either the criminal justice system to punish the wrongdoer(s) and/or
the civil court to recover your property and gain recompense for damages and hardship caused by
the wrongdoer(s) actions, you can use the force necessary to recover your property and to prevent
retribution. Proof that you carried out the first two steps would be necessary in a jury trial against
you, if you proceed with the last recourse. Remember that you don't get a jury trial unless the
criminal charge carries a sentence of over five years. Make sure you get a jury trial IF you
proceed to level three. This is mentioned for information value only. It is certainly not
recommended that you proceed through these steps if it is not necessary.

37
 SECURITY MEASURES
Should your employer, bank or other organization holding your money in trust receive a T1118B (third
party demand for your wages or money in your account) and that person or organization is co-operative
with you, have them send a letter along with a copy of your "Declaration Of Rights At Law" immediately.
Have it state: "In reference to your form T1118B to us demanding we turn over wages or other money
owed to Mr./Ms XXXX, we have on file from Mr./Ms XXXX a Declaration Of Rights At Law (copy
enclosed) declaring that he/she is not subject to the Income Tax Act or Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency (CCRA). We believe, therefore that we would be subject to criminal charges for theft and breach
of trust should we honour your demand regarding Mr./Ms XXXX unless we are presented with a court
order or at least a legal opinion, of an attorney representing the Federal Government of Canada as to the
invalidity of Mr./Ms XXXX's Declaration Of Rights At Law. We will wait 10 days for your answer, after
which, if no answer is forthcoming from you, we will assume that Mr./Ms XXXX's Declaration of Rights
at Law is valid and we must respect his/her rights."

If you are really worried about the security of your property or savings, you might remove your name
from any document that is registered with any government agency or bank. You could obtain gold coin
and bearer bonds as a savings vehicle. You could set up an offshore trust system or International Business
Corporation (IBC). Real property and businesses can either be put into the offshore trust's or IBC's name
or liened in the Provincial registry, while leaving you in full control, just as if you owned it directly. You
may have to register your trust or IBC in your Province before you are allowed to register liens or
ownership in its name. This shouldn't be a problem.

Putting registered property in a wife's, children's or other close relative's name may not be much of a
safeguard. And, RRSP's and GIC's certainly are not a safe haven for savings or retirement funds. The
government may confiscate these at anytime in the name of debt reduction, as has been the case in South
American countries. Also, don't count on a bank safe deposit box to keep valuables from thieves. If the
offshore idea is beyond your means, it's safer to begin with renting a house and leasing a car (or drive an
old one.) Remember, these actions are not being suggested because you are committing a crime or doing
anything to be ashamed over. You are simply asserting your rights. Rights that are supposedly still valid
in this country. The criminal acts are coming from our judiciary and legislative bodies that have removed
the individual’s rights from them without their knowledge.

There are a lot of organizations available to set you up offshore in trusts or International Business
Corporations (IBC's). Do your homework on which you choose to work with. Integrity and the correct
structure are more important than cost. Research your needs first and choose the appropriate vehicle
based on that. I personally think that an IBC, which is then registered in your Province for legal service
only, is the best way to go. You then file liens against your real and chattel property under your IBC.

Therefore Step #1: Set up an IBC.

Step #2: Register the IBC in your province.
Step #3: File liens on behalf of your IBC against your real and chattel property.

Never tell anyone that the IBC is ‘yours.’ You are officially an agent for the IBC working on behalf of it.
Liens work under the Admiralty rules in that the first lien gets first dibs on equity when the sale of the

38
property takes place then second, and so forth. This is called "bottomry." Talk with someone who has had
experience with the Canadian situation, rather than experience with U.S. clients. Unfortunately, our
government, in it’s march toward completely decimating our last remaining property rights is currently
debating a new Bill, which I think is Bill C-88 and which I believe will remove bottomry and allow
CCRA to move ahead of the line, no matter when the other liens were place there. This will effectively
make you a permanent tax-slave to the government unless you take drastic action because they can hold
you hostage via your property.

I am going to bring up more extensive property protection ideas in this course. If you need some
references for people who can provide you with wealth preservation ideas for your house or bank
accounts, you can e-mail sharma@untaxman.com with your request. I don’t deal directly with this area
and I would prefer to leave it to the professionals. Some ideas and suggestions may sound drastic, but
remember, unless you want to be held a tax-slave hostage for the rest of your life, you must begin to think
like a warrior. This is a war against your freedom and your property rights.

39
 WHAT ABOUT THE USE OF LAWYERS IN UNTAXING?
Apparently all lawyers in Canada have been told, directly or indirectly, to "lose" income tax cases.
Remember that all lawyers are "officers of the court." You pay them but they are under the command of
the judges and the Law Society. If a lawyer represents you in court on a tax case, you are considered an
"imbecile" by the judge. If you can find an "honest" lawyer who's willing to stick his neck out, you may
wish to obtain advice outside the courtroom. If you have any lawyer do legal paperwork for you regarding
the income tax issue, review it carefully for "plugs that can be pulled to scuttle your case."

Lawyers graduate from law school and then join the "bar," the Law Society. That is a Roman person. By
that act, lawyers become "members" of that person and cease to be persons within their own right, relative
to their profession in law. Because they are no longer persons, they lose their common law right to
practice law or be advisors of law. Because they have become dead persons in the common law, they are
forbidden to practice law. They therefore require a license - a waiver of prosecution for doing something
unlawful to practice law. Since it is the Law Society which is the person who decides what its body parts
(members) will do, it is the Law Society which has decided to side with the Federal Government on the
so-called income tax and the enforcement of the measures within that program. Remember the saying: "If
your hand offends you, cut it off." Lawyers who "offend" the Law Society soon get "cut off" or disbarred
if they don't quickly mend their ways.

Prior to the hypothecation of the Roman person called a "law society" sometime in the late 1800's and the
act of becoming a member, called "joining the bar," attorneys were full liability persons under common
law and did not require a license. The common law still allows for an "utter-barrister (in-court lawyer)
and utter-solicitor (advise in law and document preparation), which are lawyers acting outside the bar.
The major stipulation is that no "fees" are allowed - only reasonable expenses and remuneration for skill
and labour (a game in semantics). Disbarred lawyers could act in this capacity if they were careful to
answer the judge's question: “Are you accepting a fee for your services?” They can only be
compensated a reasonable amount for their time and effort.

40
 DEALING WITH THE THUGS...
(This heading may sound harsh; but you have to remember who has been responsible for imposing this
fraudulent tax upon the Canadian People.)

On the very vague chance that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) attempts to charge
you with "failure to file," at the applicable court, file an "affidavit to deny jurisdiction." This affidavit is
filed as relevant evidence for your defense under the same case number that is on the summons. In that,
you would declare your full name and natural person of commoner status, state your cancellation of any
contract making you a fictitious person called a "taxpayer" and state your Common Law rights on
property as found in Blackstone's Commentaries.

Before we proceed, let's review the defensive arguments:

1. You are a natural person with commoner or freeman status. You address yourself as "this party" -
"this person" has a broader, and not necessarily a beneficial, meaning.

2. You are protected by the Common Law, which requires proof of "probable cause" - damage to a
person or property, to put you on trial. The only performance requirements upon you are jury and
posse.

3. You are under no contract with the Government that changes your freeman status to that of legal
entity or of a servant (serf). You are not a "ward of the Crown."

4. Neither a jury nor the law of the land has outlawed you. Any other form of being outlawed
violates the Magna Carta Section 39. The Magna Carta is "forever" according to Sec. 63.

5. Your absolute rights are Liberty (freedom to travel, and to exercise rights), Security of Person,
and Property Rights (right to acquire, own, use, sell, give away or bequeath property - which
includes your labour and skill).

6. The Statute of Frauds (Br. AD1677) requires all contracts of other than those of the most minor in
nature to be written, and signed by the contractors. You have not signed any contracts that
changed your status to a serf or legal entity. The Federal Government's assumption that you are a
legal entity called a "taxpayer" is Fraud and a Trespass upon your Person.

7. No sovereign authority has granted Roman personhood to the Federal Government of Canada.
The Federal Government of Canada is not a person under law. Charges against you by a non-
person are ultra vires.

8. The "nom de guerre" on the summons is not you. The summons is therefore void, as you are not
in the military and you are not a ward of the Crown.

9. No sovereign authority in Canada has acknowledged the Crown of England to be the Crown of
Canada. Queen Elizabeth II is a "fraud and pretender" to the position of Monarch over Canada.
Therefore, a fraud and pretender cannot bring a natural Canadian freeman to court. Such an act
constitutes "constructive treason" against a party living in Canada. (Party - a sovereign natural
person).
41
Although the summons from the Crown attorney is not a lawful summons at Common Law, it is
somewhat legal in administrative procedure against a fictitious person. Since the Government now
"assumes" or deems all Canadians to be fictitious persons, they believe they have the right to use police
power to harass and intimidate you into compliance at their whim. File your affidavit at the court named
on the summons. If you do not obey a summons, the Clerk of the Court, or other judicial official, can, and
most likely will, issue a "bench warrant" for your arrest. You must appear in the courtroom but that does
not automatically mean that you have entered "their court" unless you remain silent and don't bring
protest. You could, and should, if you can get by the firewalls set up at the courthouse by these thugs, file
a counterclaim against the Crown Attorney for "breach of trust of a public officer" for bringing false
charges against you, a natural person of commoner status, and in violation of your absolute rights and the
"forever" rights established in the Magna Carta (1215 -1225). This criminal act is defined in the Criminal
Code of Canada.

The name (your name) as it usually is written on their summons is a "nom de guerre," a war name. This
is where your last name is read first and first name last. That will be your first point of contention in the
courtroom. You are a natural person under the common law - and you go only by your common law
name. You do not recognize the name on the summons as your own. To voluntarily enter a court which
hasn't jurisdiction automatically signifies your acceptance of that judge's jurisdiction over you. This
refers to acknowledging the name on the summons as being you, stepping forward to the defense podium
or bar, or taking part in a trial and arguing points of defense related to the charge. In the courtroom, stand
back from the bar and DO NOT STATE YOUR NAME WHEN ASKED TO DO SO.

INSTEAD, SAY: "I refuse to do so because this is a fraud against me." DO NOT ENTER ANY
PLEA except a Dilatory Plea for A Hearing on Jurisdiction. If the judge enters a plea - which would be
"Not guilty" - you answer: "Your Honour, have you appointed yourself as my attorney?" (It is
unlawful for a judge to act as an attorney and judge at the same time.) Then, verbally refuse to recognize
any plea the judge may enter. Note: The word "dilatory" means "delay." In Common Law, a dilatory
plea is a request for a hearing on jurisdiction of that court or other reason why the action should not
proceed.

If you are forced into their court by act or threat, state your status as a natural person and commoner,
present (and read - if allowed) a copy of your constructive notice to the Minister. Read your affidavit
denying jurisdiction (which should have been filed earlier), then make the statement "I Stand Mute."
Say no more. If you are served with a summons, due process of law requires a case number and an
attached affidavit from the Crown Attorney stating the nature of the evidence against you and the nature
of damage you have done to person and/or property (probable cause).

You may wish to follow the procedures, reproduced in this course, by the late Howard Freeman of
Montana. He was very successful in dealing with the problems associated with the hidden admiralty
jurisdiction courts. In addition to the extensive writings of Howard Freeman included in this course, you
can also find out more about his concepts on the Internet by searching under his name in Alta Vista search
engine.

42
 READ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH TWICE...
Since you have no basis for appeal in a "failure to file" case (if you take part in a trial or make any plea
other than dilatory plea, or accept without complaint a judge entered plea), a judgement against you will
stand. Likewise, if you use Constitution or Charter of Rights and Freedoms arguments in a trial or
application for abatement in the form of a writ of prohibition or error, you will lose. It's a side track
issue and not relevant to your status as a commoner. Nor is it relevant to contract litigation, the
jurisdiction under which income tax cases are tried.

The Common Law and your Common Law rights are the only issue to be presented. There are
organizations out there that are teaching people that they can use Constitutional arguments and so forth to
fight this tax situation. This will likely come back to haunt people who try this tactic. By not taking part
in a trial, one has a better chance of getting a "Writ of Prohibition" or "Writ of Error" (Common Law
writs); or "Form of Writ of Prohibition" or "Form of Writ of Error" (Admiralty Law writs) from a higher
court. If you take part in a trial, the hearing judge will refer the application to the Appeal Court, a sure
loser. However, you may wish to follow the technique suggested by Howard Freeman.

What if the judge assumes jurisdiction and makes judgement against you or the judge refuses your
abatement application? There aren't many avenues of defense left. A case in the Middle Ages (1634) in
England constitutes a good precedent. It is a case called "Ship Money" - Rex vs. John Hampden. The
judges of the Exchequer found against John Hampden for refusing to pay a tax called "ship money" which
was a special tax, similar to an income tax, imposed to raise money to fight piracy. Subsequently, the
judges were found guilty of treason (and most likely hanged) as their decision was considered bad law,
promoting the overthrow of the founding principles of English Law and Society. The judges of the higher
court found that the Exchequer judges were responsible as they swore an oath to uphold the law, and in
doing otherwise, they had brought dishonour and insult to the King's Majesty. However, Charles I lost
his head (literally) mainly over the same tax. Therefore, if a judge proceeds to convict you, it is evident by
the above case that he/she has committed treason against you and the Canadian People.

Don't panic when you read the heading of this next section. The odds of your being charged with
"failure to file" are, at this time, slim to none if you use this system. However, that may change at any
time. The sooner this is done, the lower the odds of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)
trying to take you to court. The next section is most applicable to those who are "up to their
proverbial rear end in alligators" with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) prior to
finding this information. The following is somewhat repetitive of the above. However the emphasis is
the same.

43
 Suggestions On Handling An Unlikely “Failure To File” Charge
(Canadian Income Tax system)
If served a summons to appear:

At Court House: When called up by the Clerk and asked to state your name, use your full Christian or
Common Law name that should be stated in the following order:
First Middle Last.

Without hesitating, you then hold up the summons and state: "I don't find my name on this summons.
What I find on here is a military name. I am not a member of any military organization. I am a
natural person of commoner status living in a common law province.” "I demand this case be
dismissed forthwith."

The odds are very good that they will have spelled your name with all capital letters, and/or use initials,
and/or put your family name first, and/or delete one of your names. These are all forms of admiralty
designations - also referred to as a "nom de guerre" (war name). Common law must use the order stated
above and start all your names with a capital letter with the remainder lower case. This is your first
defense without recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court over you. This tactic may sound simplistic, but,
hey, if it works, and it should, that's all you need. If the judge chooses to proceed, and you are requested
to enter a plea...

Say: “I enter a dilatory (delay) plea and demand a complete, fair and adequate hearing on
jurisdiction of the matter for which I have been served a summons to appear in this court.” This is
your second line of defense without recognizing jurisdiction of the Court. (See jurisdiction in Lesson #7)

If the judge refuses to obey your demand and proceeds by entering a plea for you:
Say: "I do not recognize the plea which you have entered. I will not participate in this proceeding."
(Note: In this last sentence, a USA detax teacher used a different approach at this point. I have
reproduced his approach as an addendum in Lesson #7.)

If the judge chooses to proceed with the trial, a future date will be set. However, if the judge decides to
hold the trial on your first appearance, ask for a delay in the trial date to allow for discovery proceedings.

If granted a hearing on jurisdiction: You may be required to file a bill of particulars (Your basis for asking
for a hearing on jurisdiction) by the Crown Prosecutor. Use the numbered items below as your basis for
that document. Upon reading it, they may employ the tactic of meeting you just prior to the set
commencement of the hearing and attempt to intimidate you into entering a plea instead of having a
hearing by suggesting you will be charged with contempt of court if you do not immediately enter a plea.
This is a bluff. Don't fall for it. Remember that if you enter a plea (guilty, not guilty of nolo contendre),
you have stuck your head in their noose.

Do not be sidetracked into arguing "constitution." If the judge or Crown prosecutor bring up the subject,
say: “I do not believe that the people of Canada have a written constitution. I believe that the so-called
Constitution Act of 1982 is a form of Roman law document, loosely referred to as a constitution, which
is solely applicable to, and the property of the "club" called the Parliament of Canada. We, the people
have an unwritten constitution called the Anglo Saxon Common Law.” (There are other legal systems
falsely called common law, so emphasize "Anglo-Saxon.")
44
At the hearing: Make sure there is an official court recorder present and taking notes or recording.
• Read aloud your "constructive notice" (Which you should have long since filed with the Minister of
National Revenue). Attach a copy to your bill of particulars if one is requested.

• Read aloud the "Blackstone articles" from your copy of "You Have Never Had To Pay Income Tax In
Canada." Attach a copy to your bill of particulars, if one is requested.

• If the judge says he/she is familiar with any of these and you do not have to read them: Say: "I
demand to read them into the official transcript."

• Demand to have the international contract making you, and the people of Canada, liable to pay
income taxes to the Canadian Government. Say: "I do believe that the only way the Canadian
Government could put that sort of liability for compulsory payment of income taxes on a Canadian
citizen is if he has been pledged into servitude to a foreign power by that government. If this is so, I
demand to see that documentation."

• Demand to have evidence presented showing that the Crown of Britain, which the Canadian
Parliament calls the Crown of Canada and the Parliament of Canada, are the lawful Government of
Canada. Say: "I believe that the Crown of Britain, presented as the Crown of Canada and the
Parliament of Canada have no lawful authority to be the Government of Canada since the Statute
of Westminster (1931). Prior to 1931, the Parliament of Canada was an instrument of the British
Board of Trade. The Statute of Westminster resulted in an act similar to the de-commissioning of a
ship of the Royal Navy. In that Act, ALL sovereignty was recognized as being in the former
Provinces of the Dominion (Colony) of Canada. As things now are, the present Provincial
Governments are subservient to the fraudulently appointed Governor General through the Lt.
Governors, thus they do not qualify as lawful provincial governments and therefore do not
represent the sovereignty represented and recognized in the Statute of Westminster. "

• Demand evidence to the fact that the Crown of Canada or the Parliament of Canada is a "person" and
therefore in a position to bring action against a natural person in Canada. Say: "I don't believe that
any authority has bestowed Roman personhood (legal entity status) upon the Crown of Canada or
the Parliament of Canada and therefore, both are non-entities."

At the end of the hearing, you must demand that the case be quashed for want of any proper jurisdiction.

• If the judge does not allow a hearing or does not recognize your jurisdiction arguments and proceeds
with the trial: Say: "I, (Your full name) am a natural person and a commoner. I will not
participate in this proceeding and stand mute. I reject any attorney this court might appoint to
represent me. "

The reason for not participating in a trial is to make the transcript short, as transcripts cost some $3.00 per
page (in Alberta). Also, participating in the trial may disqualify you from proceeding to Queen's Bench
(or equivalent) for a Writ of Prohibition, that is if the Provincial Court judge proceeds with the trial and
finds you guilty. The Queen's Court judge would most likely say that since you participated in the trial

45
and didn't get the result you desired, you should be in the Appeal Court. Of course as a taxpayer, or
assumed to be a taxpayer, there is no point in your appealing if you haven't filed - you're guilty.

THE FORMS

A Constructive Notice and a Declaration of Rights at Law are variations of a "Trespass Warning" which
you might see nailed to a fence post. These must be worded correctly and the details within the notices
may vary over time depending on what legal tricks the government comes up with to try and confuse
people who use this system. Do not use anything other than the ones provided in this course.

The original Constructive Notice goes to the Minister of National Revenue.

Keep 4 to 5 copies of the completed and signed notice for your files to attach to future correspondence.

You keep the original Declaration of Rights at Law.

A Notary Public or Commissioner for Oaths must witness the Declaration of Rights at Law under oath.
Make copies of the completed form to serve upon concerned persons and/or companies.
If some company holding your money in trust has a good chance of receiving a third party demand,
rename this form to “Constructive Notice.” Replace the first paragraph with the person in the company
responsible, the company name and its address. This makes it a specific trespass warning instead of a
general trespass warning. This form is now attached to this package.

MAKE SURE YOU SIGN THE FORMS IN THE SAME MANNER AS IT IS PRINTED ON THE
FORMS. HAVE THE WITNESS ALSO SIGN SIMILARLY.

Each name in your signature should start with a capital letter and have the remainder in small case and
should contain your full name (no letters, nicknames or abbreviations). A hyphen goes between the
given names, followed by a colon, then your family name. Example: John-Fitzgerald: Kennedy.

The correct presentation to signify Common Law:

John-Fitzgerald: Kennedy
All other presentations may signify Roman or Admiralty law.

I have been using the term "statutory declaration" in previous instructions. I have come to believe that the
term "Declaration of Rights at Law" is more appropriate in that it also declares the superiority of
Common Law in the maintenance of basic rights for a natural person.

The Constructive Notice begins with "I have recently learned," as a faulty or voidable contract or implied
contract becomes binding if the hurt party continues living under the bad contract for a protracted time
after learning of the fault or deception. Unless it can be proven that there was a definite threat of some
kind against the hurt person if that person tried to get out of the bad contract. In voiding the contract past,
present and future, one is telling the warned person that any business or supposed debts arising out of past
activity are void and any present and future supposed requirements associated with the bad contract are
void. Once you learn of this detax system it is critical that you don’t go telling people that you

46
know how to get out of the tax system lawfully if you have not done so already. It can quickly become
apparent that you have not ‘recently learned’ of your rights or of your injured party status in this matter,
but have known about them for some time and have still accepted your position within the contract.

The notice also contains a paragraph demanding previous taxes to be returned. But don't expect to have
any past taxes returned. After an income tax T1 form has been filed with the Receiver General, that
money declared as income tax was deleted (destroyed) and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA) has no authority to create new money to replace it. (So you thought income tax went to pay
Government bills...) This paragraph is useful only to reinforce your cancellation of past supposed
contractual obligations.

The notice also removes Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)’s right to use your SIN#.
Your SIN# is for Canada Pension use only. All others, including Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency (CCRA), must have your permission to use your SIN# for any other purpose. We have
unwittingly given permission to almost any business to use our confidential SIN# for ridiculous
purposes. Today the government is finally starting to realize the seriousness of the fraud that goes
on because of our casual use of the SIN.

The Caveat is the warning that you now have the right to use whatever force is necessary to defend
yourself and your property. The Government has effectively eliminated all means through the Justice
system to stop their unlawful activities against the Canadian People.

47
 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
The Hon. Martin Cauchon, MP
Minister of National Revenue
Room 121, East Block, House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6 Dated: May 19, 2000

Sir:

I, Jonathan-Fitzgerald: Kennedy, have recently learned that I, a natural person of commoner status, am
not a ‘person’ included in the Income Tax Act of Canada who is subject to the income tax. I have further
learned that I have been defrauded by The Federal Government of Canada and deceptively induced by
Revenue Canada's propaganda into making a supposed contract by filing an income tax return, thus
changing my status to ‘taxpayer’ which makes me subject to the income tax by that supposed contract.
This act by the Federal Government of Canada is believed by me to be a violation of the Statute of Frauds
(Br.) of 1677 and a trespass upon my person and my property.

As the injured party, I hereby revoke and void any such supposed or assumed contract, past, present and
future; and hereby declare my sovereign status as a natural person and a commoner.

I hereby revoke and forbid any usage of my Social Insurance number as a taxpayer number, and void any
contract such past usage of it as a taxpayer number may have implied.

I hereby demand that you pay back to me forthwith any supposed withholding tax which has been
withheld from my wages, and all supposed income tax which I paid over to the Receiver General of
Canada under my Social Insurance Number 999-999-999, on the grounds that I was fraudulently induced
to pay it and was thus deprived of that money, the fruits of my labour and skills - my private property,
unlawfully.

Thirty calendar days is hereby given from date of service of this notice for the Federal Government of
Canada to commence an action in a court of proper jurisdiction to prove that a legitimate contract in the
above-noted matter actually exists, after which time, if such is not forthcoming, the facts and declarations
within this constructive notice shall be deemed to be true, correct and lawful.

I hereby demand that you order Revenue Canada to cease and desist any harassment of me and that you
prohibit Revenue Canada agents from violating my common law property and privacy rights.

I, Jonathan-Fitzgerald: Kennedy, a natural person of commoner status, lawfully living at:

1234 Main Street, in the town of Hope, in the province of Ontario, declare in the presence of the
undersigned witness that the above statements made by myself are believed to be true, correct and
according to the laws of Ontario and Canada.

Signed Witness

________________________________ __________________________________

48
 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AT LAW

TO: ANYONE HOLDING ANYTHING IN ANY FORM OF TRUST FOR, OR DEBT PAYABLE OR PLEDGE
PAYABLE TO DECLARANT, including, but not limited to: Banking Institution, Trust Company, Insurance
Company, Employer, Contractor, Tenant

I, Jonathan-Fitzgerald: Kennedy, a freeman, a natural person and a commoner, come and declare:

1. I am under no contract, explicit or implicit, which changes my status to any type or form of fictitious person,
such as taxpayer, limited liability, or incorporated.

2. I own my labour and skills and owe no allegiance, and nothing of myself, or my property to any level of
government.

3. I hereby forbid the use of my Social Insurance Number for any purpose other than as a Social Insurance
Number for Canada Pension purposes. My Social Insurance Number is specifically not to be used as a taxpayer
number or on any documents designed to require a Social Insurance Number for Income Tax Act or Income Tax
Regulations reporting purposes.

4. I hereby forbid anyone, who being in possession of anything of mine, and held in any form of trust, to turn over
anything to a third party except by my express permission or upon being presented with a lawful judgement and
court order against me. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, anything includes: money, credits,
personal information, personal payroll and employment records, documents, and chattel property. A Revenue
Canada third party demand does not constitute a lawful garnishee against a natural person of commoner status
unless accompanied by a proper court judgement and order.

5. I am not subject to the Income Tax Act of Canada and therefore am not subject to withholding tax.

CAVEAT: Anyone found in violation of my common law rights will be subject to prosecution under the Criminal
Code of Canada for theft and/or breach of trust and/or breach of privacy. And, should redress be denied to me in the
justice system, I hereby serve notice that I have a common law right to defend my property by use of whatever force
is necessary to regain my property and to stop the criminal act.

I, Jonathan-Fitzgerald: Kennedy, lawfully living at 1234 Main Street, in the city of Hope, in the province of Ontario,
do solemnly declare that the facts as stated in this declaration of natural person of commoner and freeman status are
believed by me to be true and correct, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and
knowing it to be the same force and effect as if made under oath.

Declared before me this ______ day of _______________,

)
)
2000, at _________________________, Ontario. )
)
)
) ___________________________________
_________________________________________________ ) Jonathan-Fitzgerald: Kennedy
A Notary Public in and for the Province of Ontario. )

49
 How you sign your name tells you what form of law you are under
Do you wish to sign your name as a ‘legal entity’ or do you wish to sign your name as a ‘natural person’
of commoner status. One version gives the government authority over you and the other gives you
authority over the government.

It’s your choice.

Below are two examples and what they signify. The first signature is a typical enough version which
doesn’t spell out the name at all. This is the signature of an entity and falls under Admiralty Law.

The second signature is a Common-Law signature and is the signature of a natural person who has
retained all Common-Law rights and is not an entity. All documents should be signed by you using the
second Common-Law signature style if you wish to retain your rights as a natural person.

In addition to signing your name as a sovereign natural person, you should also include the
following statement in small letters under your name, either in writing or with a small rubber
stamp. “Natural person. All rights reserved. Without prejudice.” If you believe there may be a
hidden contract in what you are signing, you can add, in addition, “non-assumpsit contract”

50
51
ADDENDUM AND USEFUL INFORMATION
A fuller version of Blackstone’s is available on disk in text format with the course.

BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES
Absolute Rights

NOTE: Lord Blackstone named the three absolute rights as being:

1. The Right to Personal Liberty
2. The Right to Personal Security
3. The Right to Property

QUOTE:
III. The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property: which consists in the free
use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the
laws of the land. The origin of private property is probably founded in nature, as will be more fully
explained in the second book of the ensuing commentaries. Certainly the modifications under which we
at present find it, the method of conserving it in the present owner, and of translating it from man to man,
are entirely derived from society; and are some of those civil advantages in exchange for which every
individual has resigned a part of his natural liberty. The laws of England are therefore, in point of honour
and justice, extremely watchful in ascertaining and protecting this right. Upon this principle the great
charter (Magna Carta - 1215 AD) has declared: "No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised
or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him,
except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land." (Section 39).

Note 1: Law of the land (Anglo-Saxon Common Law) - Requirements: Must be proven before a jury of
peers that one did damage or imminent threat of damage to a person or property.
Note 2: "Or" almost always means "and" in legal documents and statutes.

BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES
Page 123 The Rights Book 1
Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as
the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes
of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic.

THE COMMON LAW

The Law given to many of the ancient people through sages and prophets and commonly known as God's
Law is of record, especially to the people of the Middle East. That law has come to most of the modern
western World through the recorded writings of the Hebrews. The Law recognizes each adult human
person who is of sound mind as being in possession of the knowledge of what is good and what is evil
and makes him/her totally responsible for their own actions. The Anglo-Saxon Common Law was an
adaptation of the Common Law by the Anglo-Saxon people who emigrated to England circa 500 A.D.
and is still the law system of record in England and the Canadian provinces except Quebec in civil
matters.

52
Two statements summarize the Common Law:

1. Do not unto others as you would not have them do to you.

2. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

#1 is the rule of civil justice and #2 is the rule for social justice.

The Roman Law

The ancient Persians devised a system of law that circumvented God’s Law relative to the individualism
of the human beings under their military, and largely maritime ruled empire. They bestowed or created
personhood for their war ships. This placed the human crewmembers in the status of body parts of the
ship "person." The logic of this was that body parts could only function when ordered to do so by the
mind of the person. The captain of the ship was given the "mind" status and thus, dictatorial control. The
word ‘membership’ originates from this ancient law. Any ‘member-ship’ or ‘ship-member’ submerges
their own natural person status for the good of the Roman body. No different than ant or bee colonies.
Most organizations that have member-ships are pretty benign, but be careful of organizations like the
Freemasons, who have much more sinister agendas by using their ‘ship-members’ for greater agendas.

The Romans adopted the Persian maritime form of law and expanded their system to include guilds and
companies. So under the Roman system, if one were a crewmember of a ship, member of a guild, or an
employee of a company, one was not a total person and thus subject to dictatorship. Slaves were in the
status of "non persons" by their being "owned." Slaves fall under the property rights of the owner, which
are: Right to own, use, sell, give away, and bequeath. The Emperor or Caesar of Rome bestowed or
created this personhood for ships, guilds and companies. After the cessation of the Roman Empire, that
power was assumed by the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

In the early Middle Ages, the King of England became alarmed at being made personally responsible for
his actions by the Magna Carta of 1215 and as revised in 1225. At that time the Crown of Great Britain
was still subservient to the Papacy of Rome. The King (I believe this was Edward 1) sought, and was
awarded, Roman Personhood for the Crown of England. This produced a type of "limited liability,” as the
person known as the Crown was responsible for all actions committed by the wearer of the Crown. This
severely limited any actions spelled out in the Magna Carta against the human being in possession of the
Crown of England.

As the English merchants became World shippers and traders in the Middle Ages, they adopted the
Roman Law by receiving personhood for their companies and ships from the Crown and indirectly from
the Pope. This bestowal was in the form of a "charter," which is a form of official "writ" or command
from a person having authority to do so. This "limited liability" protected the merchants from financially
breaking lawsuits for losses that were commonly incurred by natural disasters, piracy, human error or acts
of war, which resulted in loss of valuable cargo.

Following the lead of the Crown of England, the politicians became members of "bodies politic" and
lawyers formed themselves into “bar associations” - Roman persons. This removed individual human
beings that were members of these organizations from answering personally for their actions on behalf of
that organization to anyone outside their organization.

53
The "body politic" Roman persons have gone on to devise a scheme to entrap other human beings into
their control jurisdictions by the use of "contract." A contract is an agreement to exchange property, a
right within the property right - one of the basic three fundamental rights of human beings. These bodies
politic offer some supposed benefit to entice the human being to agree to a membership (ship member -
part) or do some act which indicates that that person is a member or fictitious person (legal entity). Thus
arises the actual or assumed contract which is made binding by court action or threat of court action.
Terms of the contract are written in the form of statutes, decrees and regulations, which impose dictator's
law on that natural person who has been conned into their trap. This is the nature of the income tax, social
security, driver's license, marriage license, etc. These contracts are flawed in Common (God's) Law for
want of: disclosure of terms, the exchange of valuable property or tangible benefit and the voluntary entry
requirement. Most of these contracts are totally fraudulent on the part of the "body politic."

From 1867 until 1931 Canada was "chartered" or given Roman personhood by the Crown of England
through the BNA Act of 1867 and Letters Patent to the Governors General. Just as a British warship is
"decommissioned" at the end of its useful service, the Colony (Dominion) of Canada was
"decommissioned" by the Statute of Westminster (1931). Decommissioning means removing or nullifying
Roman personhood. The Parliament of Canada, prior to 1931 was a British colonial organization
subservient to the Governor General and fell under the Roman personhood of Canada and the British
Crown.

Subsequent to 1931, the Parliament of Canada usurped the position of being the Government of Canada
but found itself without Roman personhood and without authority to obtain it. The Statute of Westminster
gave sovereignty to the former provinces of Canada, which could have gained such authority to bestow
Roman personhood. However, the Parliament of Canada chose to maintain control over the provinces by
a system consisting of a Governor General and Lt. Governors, thus making them subservient federal
states.

A fraudulent and counterfeit Letter Patent by Prime Minister RB Bennett appointed the first false
Governor General and this system has prevailed ever since. The Parliament of Canada has only the status
of a "club" and therefore had to devise a deceptive method of gaining members to keep its usurped
position. This was done by "voter registration" brought in the early 1930's. Registering to vote and/or
joining a political party makes one a member of the "club." The Parliament of Canada or the Provincial
legislatures do not have the Papal authority to create or bestow Roman Personhood. After the Statute of
Westminster, the British Crown had/has no authority to bestow Roman personhood on a foreign nation.

The US Federal Government was granted Roman personhood under authority of the State of Delaware.
This Roman personhood was bestowed upon the District of Columbia under which authority the US
Federal Government resides. This happened in the mid 1830's when the States had original sovereignty.
Although original sovereignty still remains with the States, the US Federal Government has usurped most
authority by overlaying Federal States over the existing States of the USA. Through a contract scheme,
the US Federal Government claims dictatorial control over all who have a Social Security number; which
includes most people living in the USA. Therefore, the Federal citizens of the Federal States vastly
outnumber the citizens of the sovereign States that occupy the same area as the Federal States.

54
 UnTaxing and Bankruptcy

When a person is wishing to untax him or herself, there may be specific circumstances when one is
ordered by the court to give up their natural person status for a specific period. Bankruptcy proceedings
are one such instance.

When a person declares bankruptcy, they become a ward of the state. The affairs of the bankruptee are
taken over by a court appointed bankruptcy trustee. This trustee now has full authority to oversee and
control your financial situation. You have no control over your financial life until such time as the
bankruptcy trustee allows you to be discharged. There are set guidelines in each province for timeframes
on this. The timeframes can be as short as nine months to over three years before you are given an
absolute discharge.

What this also means is that if you want to untax yourself, you cannot be in the middle of bankruptcy
proceedings. In addition, you cannot ever allow yourself to declare bankruptcy in your life once you
untax.

Why? Because when you lose your natural person status as a result of the bankruptcy, the trustee
has the court’s permission to file a tax return on your behalf. You have no choice because you gave
up your rights as a natural person. Once the tax return is filed, you are automatically put back into
the tax system as a ‘taxpayer’ entity. And it’s game over for you.

55
The following article by Tracy LeMay in the National Post explains the details very clearly to help you
understand this situation.

Saturday, January 08, 2000

A guide to going broke
While bankruptcy allows a person to escape from a debt nightmare, it's a bitter pill to swallow.
The alternatives usually are more palatable
Tracy LeMay
Financial Post

Five years ago, Gerry lived the good life. He had a well-paying, steady job as a sales rep and always
settled his bills on time. That was before gambling grabbed him by the throat; after that, his personal life
skidded downhill and his debts climbed. When they reached more than $50,000, Gerry (not his real name)
hit bottom.

Declaring personal bankruptcy "was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life," says the 59-year-old. "I
don't like to walk away from things, but I had to bite the bullet, swallow my pride, and do it." This is his
third month in bankruptcy and, with his gambling addiction under control and his creditors at bay, he's
beginning to stitch his life back together. He's got a new apartment, a stick or two of new furniture and
works part-time. And he's beginning to save. "Twenty dollars a month doesn't sound like much, but it's
more than I was doing before," he says.
While bankruptcy offers a new start, "it's a hell of a way" to make a rebound. "I'm not going to bounce
right back to where I was -- I probably never will -- but at least I'll get back to living like a decent human
being."

Declaring bankruptcy is the refuge of last resort for consumers with catastrophic personal financial
problems.
Although there are several other next-to-last ditch measures to consider before swallowing this bitter pill,
bankruptcy may be the only practical course for many drowning in debt. The declaration of bankruptcy
relieves debtors of the bulk of their loan problems, and offers a chance of financial rehabilitation. As
Gerry's experience shows, however, it is without question a humbling process.

To go into bankruptcy you must be insolvent: You owe at least $1,000, are unable to pay your debts and
own insufficient property to pay those obligations. "If you're running up a cash advance on credit card A
to pay credit card B, you're fundamentally unable to pay your debts as they come due," says Ian
Schofield, a senior vice-president with KPMG Inc. in Regina. KPMG, a chartered accounting and
management consulting firm, offers bankruptcy service and provides lots of information on its Web site
(www.kpmg.ca). Governed by the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the process applies to
relieving most unsecured -- rather than secured -- debt.

Unsecured debt includes credit lines and overdue credit card balances, which credit counselors say is the
biggest problem for consumers. Secured debt, such as home mortgages and car loans, is generally not
affected. If you want to hold on to these things through bankruptcy, mortgage and loan payments must be
made. Otherwise, assets may be seized. The trustee in bankruptcy -- an individual or corporation licenced
to carry out the process -- occupies a central position. The consumer selects a trustee, a middleman who
ensures his or her rights are not abused but also has an obligation to look after creditors, too.

56
The trustee will ask you to fill in several documents, the most important of which is a statement of affairs.
This details such key items as income, expenses, assets and debt. You'll be asked to surrender your credit
cards as well.
After a bankruptcy is declared, creditors can't garnishee your wages or begin any other collection action
against you.
One of the trustee's central tasks during bankruptcy is to sell any asset you own that is not exempt and
turn the proceeds over to creditors. Some assets are exempt, however. This being Canada, assets that are
not caught in the bankruptcy net vary among provinces. Generally, exempt items include such things as
household furnishings and appliances up to a certain dollar value (in Manitoba the limit is $4,500; in
Newfoundland it's $4,000); "necessary" clothing, health and medical aids; and some tools, books or other
items needed for employment.

But there are significant differences in other areas. For example, home equity is not exempt in Ontario,
whereas some provinces offer partial relief. Saskatchewan exempts $32,000 of home equity ($64,000 if
jointly owned).
A common misconception is that investments held in a registered retirement savings plan are exempt.
However, only life insurers offer creditor-proof RRSPs; bank and mutual fund company plans are fair
game. During the bankruptcy, the trustee also is required to collect "surplus income," a portion of which
is paid to creditors. The amount of surplus income is determined by federal guidelines and is suppose to
represent reasonable living costs given a family's size and situation. For a single person, for instance,
surplus income is deemed to be anything over $1,492 a month. The guidelines apply nationwide.

If you earn anything over that amount -- after certain deductions, such as costs related to child care and
medical expenses -- the trustee takes a slice (usually half) for the creditors. The bankrupt keeps the rest,
partly as an incentive to earn money. In practice, however, the vast majority of bankrupts -- 90% -- have
no surplus income, Mr. Schofield says. During bankruptcy, you are required to participate in two money
management and budget counselling sessions. You're not restricted by law in the scope of your financial
activities, but if you seek credit, you're obligated to inform the credit grantor of your status.

Extra work for Revenue Canada is also required. The trustee has to file a tax return for the period
from the beginning of the year up to your bankruptcy, and one for the remainder of the year. For
people in their first bankruptcy -- assuming there are no problems -- discharge from bankruptcy is
automatic after nine months.
At this point, you are no longer responsible for most unsecured debt incurred prior to going under. While
you'll emerge from bankruptcy mostly debt free, not all unsecured loans are discharged. Prominent
among them are alimony, child support and student loans. If you file for bankruptcy within 10 years of
last attending school, for example, your student loans will not be forgiven. If a creditor or the trustee
objects to discharge, a court may decide on some sort of conditional discharge, where you may be
required to pay creditors for a longer period.
If this is your second time through bankruptcy -- there are more people in this situation every day -- you'll
essentially stay in bankruptcy for another six months, although this varies among provinces.
A bankruptcy is recorded on your credit file, usually for up to seven years.

Copyright © Southam Inc. All rights reserved.

57
THE GREAT SCAM CONTINUES (A Review of Important Points)

The governments of Canada and the USA were convinced by the international bankers (as part of the
plans for the United Nations One-World government scheme) to do an "end run" around the "Law of the
Land," the Saxon Common Law, by imposing a form of Admiralty Law as an obligation of contract so
that they could impose their usury money system on these countries. This form of money created out of
nothing by the private banks. The graduated income tax, as stipulated in the Communist Manifesto by
Karl Marx, is mainly an instrument of control - a "cat of nine tails." The apparent purpose of this
supposed debt and form of taxation is to eliminate nation/states and common law freedom by making the
people debtor serf/slaves. This was the chosen tactic to eventually impose the totally despotic "One World
Government" upon the Earth and its People earlier this century.

The income tax is imposed as a CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. The previous information on the
Common Law and rights is all but useless information in a court case involving the income tax. Tax Court
and cases in Provincial or Federal Court arising out of the Income Tax Act fall under administrative
procedure (a deceptive description for admiralty jurisdiction) when it involves a "taxpayer." Constitution
or British North America Act arguments are worse than useless. Their use tells the judge and Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) that you are "ripe for the picking". Contracts in admiralty have
the same three basic requirements as do common law contracts - voluntary, disclosure, an agreed to
equality of the tangible items exchanged. So, even in admiralty, the contract to be a "taxpayer" is
generally faulty and may be nullified, if done in a timely manner.

58
 APPENDIX

SECTION 153.1 INCOME TAX ACT WITHHOLDING

Every PERSON paying at any time in a taxation year

(a) Salary or wages or other remuneration,
(b) etc. etc. shall deduct or withhold therefrom such amounts as may be determined IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PRESCRIBED RULES and shall, at such time as may be prescribed, remit that amount to the
Receiver General on account of the payee's tax for the year under this Part or Part XI.3, as the case may
be.

Note: Remember Income Tax Act definition of Person. Withholding is in accordance with prescribed
(prewritten) rules - which are the Income Tax Regulations.

SECTION 104.1 INCOME TAX REGULATIONS

(1) NO AMOUNT SHALL BE DEDUCTED OR WITHHELD FROM A PAYMENT in accordance with
Section 102 {reference to withholding tables of various Provinces for salaried employees} or 103
{withholding from lump sum payment} WITH RESPECT TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS FILED
WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYER A RETURN IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM (TD1)
CLAIMING THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S INCOME (other than amount required to be included in the
employee's income by reason of Subsection 56(5) of the Income Tax Act) {56(5) has to do with Family
Allowance payments} FROM ALL SOURCES FOR THE YEAR WILL BE LESS THAN THE NET
CLAIM AMOUNT FOR THE YEAR AS REPORTED ON THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR
REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION 107(1). {TD1 form filed with employer} {Try reading underlined}

The plain English version of Section 104.1 Income Tax Regs appeared in the Employer's
Guide issued by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) for 1993 - 1997. Employer's Guide:
Form TD1 --- Personal Tax Credit Return: (Page 4-2) Claim Code E -- If employees certify on their TD1
form that their total income for the year will be less than the amount claimed on line 14, do not deduct
any tax. Remember, as a Commoner, not a Taxpayer, you don't have income or remuneration. As a
Commoner and Contractor, you EXCHANGE property. It may be things, money, or your labour and/or
skills -- all being property.

You give Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) the right to use your Social Insurance number
as a Taxpayer Number by putting it on a T-1 tax return. You giveth and you can taketh away... If a
bank, or other institution demands your Social Insurance number and state that they are required by law to
have your SIN, you can refer them to Section 162(6) of the Income Tax Act to point out that there is only
a penalty "for failure to provide" specified for an "individual" who is subject to the Income Tax Act; and,
not for any institution who is supposed to have it. Since it would be for use as a "Taxpayer Number,"
and thus, reports to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), you shouldn't be giving out your
SIN. If you are opening a non-interest bearing account at a bank, rather than argue with an ignorant
clerk, just neglect to have your SIN with you or use 999-999-999. The Federal Privacy Commissioner
states that only bank accounts which pay interest are required to have a SIN#.

59
Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1: If a loophole is found in the Income Tax Act which allows one to avoid filing or paying,
such as the contract issue, will "they" not close it by changing the laws?

Answer 1: If "they" could have written the Income Tax Act so as to include natural persons, it would
have been written that way in the beginning or rewritten that way in subsequent amendments. The
Government wouldn't have had to resort to manipulating contract law and to implementing other
elaborate means to play upon the legalese ignorance of the Canadian people. Further, the basis of this
detax system is the fact that the Government cannot make statutes, rules or regulations requiring a natural
person to either make, or not to make, a contract. It would be an unlawful interference in the property
right.

Question2: Doesn't Section 91(3) of the BNA (Constitution) Act - "Any mode or system of taxation" -
give the Federal government the right to tax any way they wish?

Answer2: The BNA Act was a statute of the British Parliament, and as such became inactive relative to
the governance of Canada in 1931, with the passage of the Statute of Westminster. However, the
corporate body which assumed (usurped) power over Canada in 1931, called the Federal Parliament of
Canada, has adopted it as their constitution. From 1867 until 1931, the Parliament of Canada was a
British organization operating under the British Board of Trade and acted as an advisory body to the
British Governor General. The Constitution Act (1982) is NOT the Constitution of the People of Canada.

The Privy Council (the highest court of the time) specifically addressed this issue in "The Bank of
Toronto versus Lambe (1887)" by stating that the "general" statement is inferior to the "particular"
statement, that the exclusive right to direct taxation given to the Provinces was specific or particular and
no form of direct taxation for whatever purpose was given to the Federal Government. The "for provincial
purposes" ending to Section 92(2) is an explanation, not a limitation.

Anyway, under Common Law, all taxes are voluntary to the freeman/freewoman as a further means to
control government. Don't let your ignorance cause you to lose yet another Right. Remember that the
Federal Government is not using law to implement the income tax. It is using contract. Don't get caught
up in the constitution or BNA Act argument. That is a diversionary tactic. Canada does not have a proper
constitution. The pseudo-Roman corporation called the Federal Parliament of Canada may have a
constitution, which they apparently can ignore as and when they choose. However, the People of the
geographic area known as Canada do not have a written constitution. The constitution controlling the
People of Canada is God's Constitution - called the Common Law.

Question 3: Have there been any court cases which prove that your system to get out of the income tax
works?
Answer 3: I am not aware of any specific cases. There are however, two possible scenarios.
1. The person has been under attack by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) before
implementing this system.
2. The "cold turkey" notification by someone using the "constructive notice".

60
A couple of people in situation #1, one in Nelson B.C. and one in Alberta, have had their cases ‘stayed’
indefinitely in ‘failure to file’ charges. Another couple of people got trapped into arguing ‘constitution’
but were left with minor fines and no further court ordered action regarding the income tax. I know of no
‘court’ action being brought against anyone in situation #2 by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA).

As I have explained in the main text, income tax obligations are an individual contract issue.
Therefore, a court precedent is not likely to ever appear. The Court cannot interfere in the making of a
legal contract but can adjudicate the terms and performance of a contract that is in place. That is the
nature of "failure to file" cases.

Disclaimer: Facts presented in this document are believed to be true, correct and lawful. However this
presentation does not constitute a legal opinion; nor are the forms described guaranteed to be wholly
accurate under the Rules of Court for your Province. This system has worked well for over 14 years,
during which time nothing has refuted any part of this information.

61
 CONCLUSION
By Rev. Alex Muljiani

You now have all the knowledge you need in this program to withdraw from being subject to the Canada
Income Tax Act. By taking charge of your finances, you stand to become a freer man or woman for the
balance of your life. Once you are successful in getting out from under the yoke of Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency (CCRA), you should pass on this knowledge to anyone you care about. Whether they
take action or not is up to them, but allow them a chance to learn about this fraud upon them. That should
be your moral obligation to your own circle of family, friends and acquaintances.

Eldon warns people to take careful security precautions with their assets. Remember that Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) cannot legally touch your property (assets or cash) after you have
withdrawn from the system. This does not mean they won’t try. You do not want to tie up resources and
time trying to get back what is rightfully yours in the first place. I will make a suggestion further down
on how you can protect yourself from any of these unlawful actions.

A suggestion to you, if you have RRSP’s, is to remove your assets from that vulnerable situation without
triggering much of the withholding clause. No matter what your legal rights are, financial institutions are
cowardly when dealing with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA). So you will want to
remove only enough at a time to not trigger the 25% withholding clause. Keep in mind that RRSP’s are a
special type of tax deferral, not a tax break. Unfortunately, you will end up losing 10% of your assets
with this action that you cannot recover, but it is probably a small price to pay for your freedom to do as
you please.

RRSP’s have always been vulnerable because they have to be registered with the government. If you are
not subject to income tax, you are not in need of sheltering investment income from taxes. You may
invest them any way you please without having to play by the arbitrary federal government rules, such as
the 20% limit on foreign investment.

This new found freedom could take quite a bit of psychological adjustment. Our whole working lives
have kept us in the mindset of owing a part of our personal property (money) to the government. Now
you get to change your thinking to a much more exciting idea. Your personal property is now truly your
personal property.

It is possible that your ‘net’ income will now automatically increase between $10,000 and $20,000 or
more a year if you are in the average to upper middle class earnings range. This means every year from
now on as long as you continue to generate income. Imagine what the possibilities for your future are if
you could invest that additional income, your personal money, tax free, in any manner you choose. If you
were able to invest an additional $20,000 a year; in 5 years you would have $100,000 in capital alone,
never mind profits. This was money that went into the income tax hole until now.

Before you start on this permanent, effective and lawful program, please make sure you study this
program through at least four times. You will need to understand the process thoroughly to make sure
you are not misled or lied to by authorities. This is because these authorities have no other power except
to trick you on legal technicalities. Your full defense lies within these pages.

62
Just $840 a month in income taxes adds up to over $10,000 a year in lost revenue for you. Is it worth an
extra $10,000 to $20,000 or more to you every year to learn this material thoroughly and take action on
it? Only you can decide.

I have been through this program successfully and I am not a ‘taxpayer’ anymore. The positive response
to my web site has been very gratifying. I have also done radio, newspaper and magazine
interviews as well as seminars.

A lot of people have been asking if I could provide a relatively straightforward method of helping
them ‘untax’ themselves, which did not require many hours of study on their part. In addition, I
also recommend looking at other ways to protect yourself from Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency (CCRA)'s amazing ability to run roughshod over your property and civil rights. Being in
the right does not prevent Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), in collusion with our
banking system, from ignoring your right to be proven guilty before taking action by unlawfully
seizing your assets.

I am an expert in helping people remove themselves lawfully from being subject to income tax.
However, most of us also need to know how to work within the law to protect assets through
offshore jurisdictions, international business corporations, legally protecting your worldwide
income, using trust accounts, getting untraceable offshore Visa and MasterCard credit cards and a
number of other useful asset protection tools.

If you will require personal help with the detaxation process, I request compensation for my personal time
and effort, and I will work with each person to support and help them via telephone, e-mail and fax. You
can contact my assistant, Sharma by e-mail at sharma@untaxman.com or by fax at (209) 821-6742 to
find out more about how to proceed with personal help. If you choose to request my help, you will be able
to access sources for asset protection through me. I have invested a lot of time in researching reliable
sources. Some of these asset protection organizations are so low-key that they won’t deal with anyone
except by referral. However, you are also free to do your own research into this area if you choose. You
certainly cannot trust CCRA or the government to uphold your property rights.

This program is designed to help as many people as possible. If you feel it is time to make your beliefs
about the governments fraudulent and obscene tax system known to them, here is your chance. The next
step is yours. For the safest, most effective and quickest solution, this program will help you take the first
steps to help you become a lot more free and financially well off; effectively, permanently and lawfully.

Thank you,
Rev. Alex Muljiani

63
 Ordering the full version of this book
I have written a full version of this book that includes a great amount of information that is either
normally unavailable to the general public or very difficult to find. It has required 700 hours of research
just to find the information you will be able to access here. The full version of this book is over 500 pages
thick and contains an incredible wealth of information to help you in your study required if you want to
take back your inherent rights. Some of the topics covered in the full version of this book include:

• The Revenue Canada Flyers. The true story and actual flyers put out in Alberta exposing the
unlawful actions by Revenue Canada and the Royal Bank against innocent citizens. This information
will both amaze and shock you.

• The Money Myth Exploded. An allegorical story by Louis Even, that beautifully illustrates how we
as a nation have been duped by the bankers into accepting our current monetary system.

• How the original manipulation of the banking system happened in 1912 in parliament.

• Paul Angus Sullivan’s Bank and Tax Oath. We can only hope that this would be accepted some day.

• Paul Angus Sullivan explaining how our social experiments of this century are a total failure.

• The Professionals. Why and how the accountants and lawyers can be your worst enemy in the matter
of personal rights.

• Fear, Intimidation, Blackmail. You never realized how these tactics were used on you until you read
this.

• The citizens right to self-representation in Tax Court. An ex-auditor for Revenue Canada gives you
the inside truth on what really works and doesn’t work in tax court. How not to get trapped and what
rights you can use that you aren’t told about. How parliament has turned our country from a
democracy into an autocracy. How late filing penalties against you by Revenue Canada can be
quashed.

• The inside story of the Auditor Generals report on the success and failure of Tax Court cases.

• How to beat Revenue Canada in the collections game (legally.)

• How one person in the U.S. stopped unlawful withholding taxes by their employer.

• The actual story of how our Income Tax was created in 1917.

• The fight between Bouchard and Trudeau that exposed the sham of our so-called ‘constitution.’

• Why you need gold, silver and alternative banking options – an economist’s viewpoint.

• Actual letters to the Justice Minister of Alberta forcing the issue of our loss of common-law rights to
be exposed to the public. How these public servants responded to these letters will shock you.

64
• The 1982 Charter of Rights

• The Magna Carta

All this is available in the full version of this book and much more…

A lot of this information is not easily available to the general public. Researching the information
available in this book would likely take you hundreds of hours. But it is so valuable and powerful, every
Canadian needs to have it in their hands. What you don’t know can hurt you badly some day.

Your order will be processed within 48 hours of receipt. If you find that the book is not as valuable to
you, if not more so, than I am telling you, send it back within 7 days for a full refund. Order form and
prices are listed below.

Videotape and Audiotape Seminar Series

I had a recent seminar in Toronto that was professionally filmed by a television crew with multiple
cameras and professional lighting and editing. Since there has been such a demand around the country for
these seminars, I finally had a chance to film one and make them available for viewing at home. The
quality of the production was even better than I was expecting (and I am very demanding of quality and
integrity.) If you decide to invest in the videotape seminar series, you will not be disappointed in the
information and the quality. I also have the same seminar available on audiotape for those people who
prefer to listen in their cars or while out and about.

• How the manipulation of the Bank Act of Canada tied in with World War I and gave us the
Income Tax Act.

• Actual rarely seen banking documents that prove that India’s Mahatma Gandhi was forced to sign
over trillions of dollars to England in order to have a ‘free’ India. These will amaze you.
Bankers don’t run the world? Sure.

• The actual letters you can expect from the Minister of National Revenue to your constructive
notice. How they argue against you and how to respond. The confidence you will gain from
really understanding this will be worth ten times the price of the program.

• A thorough explanation of how the Income Tax Act does and does not apply to you. This is an
excellent primer in understanding contract law and legal definitions that will serve you well for
the rest of your life.

• A comprehensive discussion on the pros and cons of being an employee and untaxing.

• Explaining how to protect your property and money and why you don’t own anything in Canada.

These are just some of the subjects that are covered in this program. The series consists of 4 – 90 minute
tapes and will be benefit you for years to come. The video seminar series also includes a seminar
workbook.

65
 Untaxing Canadians Educational Materials

Individual Prices

500+ page Reference Manuals $75 U.S. or $110C

Seminar Audio Tapes (6 hours) $95 U.S. or $140C

Seminar Video Tapes (6 hours) $195U.S. or $285C

Combination Prices

Manuals and Audio Tapes $150U.S. or $220C

Manuals and Video Tapes $250U.S. or $365C

Audio and Video Tapes $260U.S. or $380C

Audio and Video and Manuals $320U.S. or $470C

Any combination purchase includes the FREE bonus video

“An evening with Eldon Warman”

Cash, or checks and money orders only (Made out to “Alex Muljiani”)
#11-617 Belmont Street, New Westminster, BC V3M 6W6

Please use the order form on the next page to place your order.
Thanks,
Rev. Alex Muljiani

66
 Order Form

‘Untaxing Canadians’ Educational Program

Date:_______________________

Name: _________________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________________

Phone: ( ) ________________Fax: ( )_________________________

E-mail:_________________________________________________________

(Your educational materials will be shipped to the above address.)

Please e-mail me your free weekly Freedom Canada Newsletter !

I am ordering the following items or combination of items below:

Single Items
!500+ page reference manuals $75U.S. or $110C.
!Seminar Audio tapes (6 hours) $95U.S. or $140C.
!Seminar Video tapes (6 hours) $195U.S. or $285C.

Combination Items*
!Reference manuals and audio tapes $150U.S. or $220C.
!Reference manuals and video tapes $250U.S. or $365C.
!Audio tapes and video tapes $260U.S. or $380C.
!Audio tapes, video tapes and manuals $320U.S. or $470C.

*Any of these combination orders will include the FREE Bonus Video:
“An Evening with Eldon Warman”

I am enclosing a !cheque !money order for $_________!U.S.!C to “Alex Muljiani”

Please complete and mail in this order form along with your payment, to:
Alex Muljiani
#11 – 617 Belmont Street New Westminster, BC V3M 6W6
Fax: (209) 821-6742

Shipping is included to all orders within Canada.

U.S. orders, please add $20U.S. to order for shipping to a U.S. address.

www.untaxman.com sharma@untaxman.com alex@untaxman.com

67
Remember that the proceeds from the purchase of all the above educational
materials goes toward helping fund the research and dissemination of this
valuable information for the benefit of all Canadians.

More information on ordering can be requested through sharma@untaxman.com

Suggested reading:

(All the listed titles are available through Chapters bookstores)

The Sovereign Individual Lord William Rees-Mogg & James Davidson

The Trouble With Canada William Gairdner
How All Economies Work Verne H. Atrill
Freedom Manifesto Verne H. Atrill
Global Bondage Cliff Kincaid
The Robots Rebellion David Icke
And The Truth Shall Set You Free David Icke
The Biggest Secret David Icke
For Good and Evil Charles Adams
The Creature from Jekyll Island Edward Griffin
The Monstrous Trick Kenneth McDonald

 2000 Anno-Domini. All materials for the copyright for the Alex: Muljiani.

68