A Tax Court Judge Goes Ballistic

[Burnaby49]

In a very judicial way. Our Tax Court is getting more and more swamped with your American Sovereign garbage. The judge in this decision sounds like she is trying to manage an assembly line of them rather than a single case. The taxpayer had his Notice of Appeal struck which means it is over before it starts. As the judge stated:

This provision (note-to strike) gives the Court a power which must be exercised with great care and only in exceptional circumstances. As stated at paragraph 11 by former Chief Justice Bowman in Sentinel Hill 1999 Master Limited Partnership (Designated member of) v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 742, "... their application should be reserved for the plainest and most egregiously senseless assertions ...".

Having said that she had no problem with dropping the hammer.

[9] Now, when I look at the Appellant's three attempts at getting his Notice of Appeal to comply with the Rules, he has failed to do so even in regard to the most basic aspect of his appeal: his decision to forge ahead with his paragraph 169(1)(b) argument despite my June 2012 Reasons and despite sitting in court listening to me reiterate to a number of Appellants that preceded him that that argument was without merit and could not succeed. Even if I separate that portion of the appeal document that deals with paragraph 169(1)(b), the balance contains disjointed and meaningless statements and assertions that have no hope of succeeding in this Court or any other. While Mr. Cassa's oral submissions might have shed some light on what material facts he was actually relying upon, they instead muddied the waters even further. They amounted to nothing more than an absurd blend of the ridiculous arguments he included in his appeal documents.

And what are the arguments in his oral submission that got the judge all riled up?

• "the Appellant, Adrian Cassa, acted as agent for an undisclosed Principal";
• "Principal is a living-soul, flesh-and-blood man";
• "Principal is commonly called Adrian of the Cassa family";
• "Principal earned wages in exchange for labour";
• "the wages were collected by Appellant";
• "Appellant incurred labour expenses";
• "Appellant did not use or benefit from any Expenses".
• "an individual is not defined as being a man under the ITA";
• "in Section 248(1) of the ITA a business is an "undertaking of any kind whatever"";
• "acting as an agent is a business";
• "without Principal, Appellant could not continue acting as an agent";
• "without Appellant, Principal could not continue to labour".

I think the judge a touch hasty. Had she allowed him to have his day in Court he intended to rely on some extremely impressive statutory backup;

[10] Included in his appeal was a list of the endless statutory provisions he intended to reply upon. Those included "the Bills of Exchange Act, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Bill of Rights, Income Tax Act of Canada, Income War Tax Act, 1917, Civil Code of Quebec, Canada Evidence Act, UNCITRAL, Vital Statistics Act, UPU Agreements, Criminal Code and UCC" (Amended Notice of Appeal, paragraph 37). However, he gives no indication of why or how he intended to incorporate this divergent and largely irrelevant array of legislation into his appeal and, more particularly, the precise provisions of each piece of legislation upon which he intended to rely.

Talk about a nit-picking judge! The big picture eluded her entirely. I think it is because she is simply incapable of understanding deeply researched and exhaustively thought-out tax arguments:

[11] The Appellant's Further Amended Notice of Appeal is fraught with incomprehensible arguments and allegations. It fails to identify any specific material facts and focuses almost entirely on avoiding obligations imposed under the Income Tax Act.


http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2013/2 ... tcc43.html

[Burnaby49]

I can't keep up! The case above is from a service I subscribe to that gives me a daily summary of all tax related decisions by the Tax Court of Canada, The Federal Court of Canada, The Federal Court of Appeal, The Supreme Court of Canada, and the various provincial courts.

Cassa, the above case, is from the Tax Court. After entering it here as a new thread I went back to my review of the day's cases and found another entirely unrelated case. This is at the Federal Court of Appeal where they are reviewing an appeal from a Tax Court decision quashing an appeal (unreported) essentially because it made no sense and because the taxpayer was somewhat lax about actually, properly, filing an appeal (he didn't bother). However he came out swinging at Federal Court.

My fundamental rights and freedoms as held in Trust by the Crown in Right of Canada are non-negotiable and are not to be usurped by Colour of Law and the designation of the natural person without right. I have an inalienable and lawful entitlement to the principles of common law and that as also accorded by the Canadian Bill of Rights. I have the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law nor to find myself the subject of cruel and unusual treatment and punishment.

I have found myself subject to fraud and extortion by agencies of government and when in defence against these criminal acts, demand that my rights be acknowledged, do find these government officials who have sworn to serve, ranged against me enforcing their Colour of Law and inflicting great financial and emotional harm upon this Man and pensioner of limited means.

Again, as in Cassa, nit-picking judges ignored the bigger picture and focused on actual law. This was not to the Appellant's advantage.


http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2013/ ... fca30.html

[Burnaby49]

Forgot to mention. A Canadian judge wrote an exhaustive review of the various sovereign arguments and tactics which was discussed on this board;

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8805&p=147758&hilit=Meads#p147758

Apparently our judiciary is using it as a reference. As the judge in Cassa said;

[12] I referred in the beginning of these Reasons to the Meads case. The Appellant referred to the decision as "prejudicial and premature" in an attempt to persuade me, I assume, to ignore those Reasons. Of course, that suggestion is as absurd as many of his other assertions. The Meads decision contains an exhaustive review and analysis of litigants who engage in a variety of litigation techniques and arguments, promoted by so-called gurus and designed to interfere with court operations and proceedings. Associate Chief Justice Rooke refers to such litigants under the global name "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants" ("OPCA"), although he acknowledges that they may be identified by any number of names and that some such individuals and groups have no particular identity except for the types of arguments and schemes they attempt to put before the Canadian courts.

[13] Among many other such groups, the Meads decision identifies specifically the so-called "de-taxers" or those attempting to avoid income tax obligations as well as the "freemen on land" notion and the double or split person concept. The Cassa appeal contains all of the foregoing elements. In the Further Amended Notice of Appeal, the Appellant refers to the "principal" as commonly called "Adrian of the Cassa family". In the Certificate of Service, he engages in the following similar language: "Comes, Adrian Cassa, as agent for the free will man, commonly called Adrian of the Cassa family, the undisclosed principal". Apparently, this is a common strategy in which such litigants engage. As the Meads decision notes, this duality argument is both a strange and confusing concept which uses an artificial and fictitious division of the person in an attempt to support an otherwise absurd argument. Whatever it is, it is without merit, it detracts from the court proceedings and it is total and utter nonsense. My method of dealing with any attempt by the Appellant to employ this nonsense in my Court was to simply ignore it.

Too bad we don't have frivpens up here.

[LaVidaRoja]

If you get many more of these sorts of litigants, you may well also get friv pens.