Carl Gustafson: Poriskyite Engineer

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A CRA news release (http://www.marketwired.com/press-releas ... 846692.htm) reports that Carl Gustafson of Thunder Bay Ontario pled guilty to income tax evasion and on Oct. 25, 2013 was sentenced to a fine of $84,417.00 and a nine month conditional sentence for his evasion of a little less than half a million dollars from 2005-2009. Gustafson used the Paradigm Education Group tax evasion scheme promoted by Russell Porisky.

No sign of a written judgment thus far.

Gustafson is a professional engineer and director of Norall Group Contracting. I was unable to obtain further information on that business beyond that it was involved in a number of sizable government construction contracts.

However, a little searching identified a trio of very recent judgments that relate to Norall Group Contracting:

• Curle v. Gustafson, 2013 ONSC 2463: http://canlii.ca/t/fxdcn
  
  Curle v. Gustafson, 2013 ONSC 4139: http://canlii.ca/t/fzs6c
  
  Curle v. Gustafson, 2013 ONSC 4769: http://canlii.ca/t/g07p0

These flow from one lawsuit, the very sketchy details to date are found in the first reported decision; the other two are costs and procedural matters. This is a dispute among the owners of the Norall Group, three engineers: Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson, and our friend Carl. This trio transferred their shares to their wives, in trust. Then things went downhill… In 2010 the engineers stopped getting along and allegedly the defendants tries to sabotage Norall and ship its work over to another business.

It may have been hanky-panky that led to the demise of Norall, as the judge makes the following statement at para. 20:

Regarding what counsel for the Defendants object to as atmosphere, i.e. things put into the pleadings which are immaterial but just for “effect” I agree with counsel for the Plaintiffs that what is complained of here, i.e. the reference to the Curle-Gustafson marital affair – the reference to Mr. Arnone, as well as the pre-action offer to settle - is just a part of the “narrative”, and is not so egregious as to be stricken from the pleadings.

And looking at the parties I see that Allan Curle is one of the plaintiffs, but his wife, Juanita Curle is named as a defendant along with Carl. Oh dear.

This action is at an early stage so there’s probably more to come, particularly since read together the three decisions indicate an aggressive litigation atmosphere.

There is also a rather odd case where a Carl Gustafson attempted to argue via some esoteric schemes that he was exempt from off-road vehicle insurance and licence requirements: Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) v. Gustafson, 2012 ONCJ 484 (http://canlii.ca/t/fs53l). That certainly sounds like Freeman territory, but this Carl actually engaged in some odd statutory interpretation games which, while rejected, were at least generally legitimate. The location of the offence was also quite a long ways from Thunder Bay, so who knows.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

When the judgment is released I'll get it from my CA Institute tax service and post it.

Speaking of judgments Bernard Yankson's written decision not yet out. I'm monitering that one and will post when the BC Supreme Court releases it.

[Fussygus]

Can anyone provide a service more significant than freeing one from ignorance?

"In a moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing." Theodore Roosevelt

I am the namesake that is the basis of this posting, and I will admit I was ignorant...but I knew it! I knew what I was doing didn't entirely jive with what I felt was right, but I have to say deep down I knew following this path would lead me to where I wanted to go.

I could tell you all the self righteous reasons why I did what I did, but really that doesn't matter, I am not responding to make excuses about what I did. I had a responsibility to the my society and I reneged on that responsibility. Whether I did it for a reason or not does not take away from the fact I had the duty and I didn't fulfill my part. For this I have been sentenced and shall pay for my failure.

Do I regret doing what I did? In some ways I do. I regret the suffering that my decisions in this regard has imposed upon my family, friends, and employees along the way. I regret that I have forsaken the society which has supported my throughout my life. And I regret the substantial work that those that look out for the good of our society (the CRA officer and officer of the prosecution service) had to endure for the sake of pursuing me for my decision. BUT in other ways I don't regret my decision. I don't regret it because going through the process; being forced to face my actions as they effect not only me but also the society to which I belong has been immensely rewarding.

When someone cuts you off in traffic how does it make you feel? I used to feel belittle, like they were in some way stealing my respect away from me, they dishonoured me and what I stand for. In many ways that is how I felt the government and the justice system worked. That it did not serve the common man and that it was a calculated ruse to imprison us for the sake of others benefit. That the tax laws were written to keep poor people poor. That there was an unnecessary imposition of the state on the private affairs of society. That there was just too many laws that could possibly be understood by the general public. That there were injustices occurring everywhere that were against my conscious.

So though I didn't entirely understand, or necessarily agree, I decided I needed to find a way to get over the built up anger and disdain I had towards the system that felt like it was imprisoning me, that was cutting off people all around and then giving them the finger (complete dishonour).

In the MNR trial was very rewarding exercise to myself and I think it was for the MNR officers as well. We both made mistakes on that fateful day. Subsequently, in the various court proceeding we were faced each others, and we didn't give each other the finger. We realized that we are just different people, and though we had different opinions on what was right, we seemed to all agree that our intent was honourable. I deeply respect those officers and the officers of the court as they have helped me substantially on my journey. I would welcome them as a friend anytime I may come across them.

In the CRA trial it was a little different because the stakes were substantially more significant, but I proceeded to consider that maybe I was not entirely right about things. I definitely had a different opinion of things after the MNR trial. Now trust me on the taxes we had volumes of information, interpretations, and case law organized and bound into an extensive library of binders for reference. We spent countless hours articulating positions on various things. We consulted with numerous claimed authorities (ne gurus) which I have seen within these discussion forums and researched their positions extensively. I have an extensive library of information all all means and methods but the things that seems to be missing was the question "How does a society exist without rules?". If there was no means to collect taxes, then how could the roads be built. Now those gurus would argue that there are other taxes that cover costs such as roads and hospitals, and they would claim that all income taxes go towards funding the bankers imposed deficit. But in the end all the rules are assented to in the same place, for the sake of society.

Now when it comes to those gurus, I will say I learned allot by combining much of what they taught but when you consciously look at the bigger picture, you realize that the actions they recommend contradict their own positions.

So in regards to the Tax Evasion conviction I am in agreement that it was the proper ruling in my case. I have the utmost respect and admiration for the prosecutors and CRA investigating officers, as throughout the proceedings they were entirely honourable. I guess in regards to CRA I held on longer to a faint hope that I was somehow right moreso out of fear of the bill, than a truly held belief that I was right. I never really disagreed with the need for a tax system, just more disagreed with the way it was being used.

I consider the law of our society to be no different than the law of a marriage. Sure there are things written to make clear the understanding between a man and wife, but long ago there was nothing, it was just understood. The fact we may engage in a written agreement between a man and wife does not forgo the existence of substantially more responsibility that passes between the two. You can't write the emotional into an agreement, it can't be written down, it can only be felt and understood. The unwritten is in fact the more substantial than the written for the family society to exist, to thrive. So if you want the benefit of a loving partner, these unwritten rules cannot be denied. Likewise, the laws of our society try and articulate everything, but the fundamental principle will always be necessary and is paramount. If you want roads to drive on to support your family, hospitals to save your life and that of your loved ones, schools to educate your kids, a justice system to hold people accountable for wrongs imposed on you, and a means to keep hording nations to not kill you and rape your wife, then your going to have to follow ALL it's rules, not just the ones that have no direct cost!

Nothing is perfect! Society isn't perfect; the government isn't perfect; my children aren't perfect; and I'm not perfect. I can accept that fact now. Societies in their operation make mistake just as you or I make mistakes in our daily lives. Being able to accept that reality has been able to set me free from my ignorance. I can accept it now, but move forever towards overcoming it.


Well that's about as short as I could give for a response. So I hope it gives some relief to some ignorance about my situation.
With regards to the claim of philandering, I would suggest that maybe such a claim might be a little premature at the least. But I won't get into it at this point, need to get back to work to make good on my penance. I would suggest the following reading as something that has a similar tone and to possibly consider further research on that matter.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2 ... sc114.html

Sincerely,
Carl

"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." Buddha
"All men are by nature created equal, made of the same earth by one workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto god is the poor peasant as the mighty prince." Plato

[Burnaby49]

Thanks for the contribution. Always a plus to hear from the parties involved. I can't find any released decision in your tax case. Has the decision been released? Do you have a citation?

[JamesVincent]

Welcome to Quatloos Carl. I am glad to see that you have taken what has happened in stride and used it to make yourself into a better person. Can I ask what first got you going down the rabbit hole? We don't normally have the opportunity to talk to someone who drank the koolaid and was able to walk away with intact facilities.

[Fmotlgroupie]

Hi Carl,

Welcome to Quatloos! It's great to hear that your journey has brought you to a happier place. It takes an awful lot of courage and self-confidence to pull a u-turn like that, and I hope you can inspire some others who find themselves in that hole to quit digging.

[Dr. Caligari]

Welcome to Quatloos, and please do tell us more.

[Fussygus]

Thanks for the words of support from all, it is a bit of a pill to swallow ones pride, but I definitely feel better about everything going forward.

I looked for ruling too but couldn't find it posted on Canlii. I don't know why, but maybe because it was guilty plea and judge made verbal ruling on sentence. So I can imagine he would have to prepare details from his notes and from agreed statement of facts, and knowing it's already been acted on, and no appeal was issued, he probably has off in the corner of his desk under low priority. Or maybe because a full trial continued after I was gone, he might include it somehow within that ruling. All I really have is the form indicating the sentence.

With regards to what drew me to drink the Koolaid and go down the rabbbit hole, I would say it was the culmination of factors. I think first off the gun registry disturbed me. The way it was brought in under the premise of public safety as a political reaction to the Montreal shootings did not sit well with me. It seemed it was being driven down the throats of law abiding gun owners to appease a different agenda, not because there was an honest concern for public safety. I gave me a feeling of a hidden agenda to end hunting, rather than an honest intention to curb violent crime. Frankly, I don't even own a gun, never have, but it seemed so fundamentally wrong that I felt our government was imposing an agenda that was not in the best interests of society. That our government was in essence selling the greater society out for someone else. Who that was is hard to say, but in any event the whole thing worked against my conscience. It gave me a feeling of being powerless to the whims of whoever was pulling the strings of the government. Then throw in the unbelievable financial fiasco that followed (something like a cost to the taxpayers of $4000 for each rifle registered ($2B/500K)) and you have discontent about the system we have in place being self regulating. A system which has little concern for making effective use of the tax dollars that go into the system, giving the finger to the taxpayers as the government cuts them off so to speak.

The next thing that pushed me down the hole I think was being exposed to the family law as it was being applied. My former associate was going through a custody battle, and though I didn't think he was approaching the issue properly, I was exposed to some of what I felt was injustice being imposed on the fathers in those cases. I remember Diane Francis, Financial Post, did a four part series of articles about the plight of fathers in such custody and divorce battles. What appeared to be occurring was that preference was being given to the women over the men in 99% of cases. And not only were the children being torn away from the fathers for no good reason, but they were then subsequently brought to their knees by the justice system. Story after story came resulted in the fathers feeling so helpless, so distraught, that they ultimately committed suicide. I thought what is wrong with the government that it would turn a blind eye to the damage it was doing to the people that support it. Now don't get me wrong I do see how the abuses can go the other way now, but at the time I did not have any reference to show otherwise.

...Ugh lost lots of reply because login timed out and I tried to send before saving... Have to retype.

So as I was in a fishbowl being fed shots of koolaid by someone who had a direct distain for the justice system, he approached me with the Paradigm information. We subsequently looked into the claims that they were making, we had difficulty in finding a hole to prove that what they said wasn't plausible. Frankly, what we found were things written that appeared to be written in a fashion to be misleading.

Needless to say we proceeded down the rabbits hole.

I will continue more about what I found down there (lost as noted above) later. So tbc.

Respectfully,
Carl

p.s. Should see about increasing session timer for long winded blowhards like me.

[Fussygus]

... I was able to go back and find my earlier draft...here it is..

...

So at this point I am in a fishbowl called work, and being fed little cups of koolaid as I stewed over the things my conscious told me were unjust. Then I am brought details on paradigm. We did extensive research into it and I was instigated to undertake this path. Even at the time I didn't have a real issue so much with taxes, but I felt it gave me a means to express my discontent with those who would lord over us.

Now we didn't limit things to simply paradigm, we reviewed countless other sources for information about how the process worked. I have been exposed to probably a dozen of the biggest names in legal political discontent, I have volumes of their material and have read and dissected it to the tune of thousands of hours or focused review.

In the end what brought about the realization of what I was missing was actually right within the text of what was being sold by the gurus.

I always knew what I was looking for was going to be real simple. That once I figured it out all the interpretation of the law would become self evident. That the law wasn't a confusing mess intent on misleading us into servitude, the law could be understood without being read.

I remember driving back from the ruling on the MNR case with a friend who had been doing extensive study of the religious scriptures. I explained to him as we drove why the ruling in this case was just, and how it was consistent with my conscious beliefs. As I did, he would reply to me how what I was saying could be directly related to the scripture of the bible. That was when I really felt that all along it was all pretty simple, that all I had to do was look within my conscious for the answer. The laws and rules don't violate my conscious, they articulate the details for clarity when someone can't see the answer within their conscious, or to clear up things that could go two ways.

"The law says drive on the right hand side of any road. Why was this law written? Because without it, you cannot have no way of knowing which side of the road the car coming at you will drive on. You are in peril without the law". The law is there to help society function in a consistent manner, so that you can lead your life with some security that the guy coming towards knows the rule to drive on the right hand side of the road. That only licensed drivers, that have proven they know at least the basic rules will be allowed to drive on the road, for your good, for the good of the society to which you are a member.

Well that's all for this morning. I'd give my email address if anyone want to contact me, but I would just like to know that it won't be inundated with spam if I put it on here?

Respectfully,
Carl

"You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you." Walt Disney

[Burnaby49]

Well that's all for this morning. I'd give my email address if anyone want to contact me, but I would just like to know that it won't be inundated with spam if I put it on here?

Don't post your e-mail address. If anyone wants to contact you they can do so with the PM (Private Message) button just below your name in the right-hand column.

Thanks for confirming your decision hasn't been published. I read (or at least scan) all Canadian tax decisions and I was wondering how I missed it.

[Fussygus]

Good to know about private message button.

Ya, I'm thinking the ruling may come as a final ruling once all parties are dealt with as the original charge was against 4 parties. I plead guilty right at start; corp plead guilty a number of months later during trial; and then other two have gone through full trial and await decision later this month. So might be a couple more months before ruling is actually published. But I will let you know when i see it.

Carl

[Burnaby49]

Revisiting the cast of characters in this tale of woe we find that Alan Curle, the other litigant, is now a vexatious litigant.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... bGUAAAAAAQ

Aparently the Court did not appreciate his Poriskyish legal insights. He's still heading down the chute on the tax charges;

(j) In December, 2012, Mr. Curle sought intervener status in the matrimonial litigation. He argued that he, Allan James of the Curle Family, was separate and distinct from Allan James Curle. He submitted that the courts had no jurisdiction over him and he was not subject to the domestic law of Canada. This motion was dismissed by Mr. Justice Wright who ordered Mr. Curle to post security for costs of $5,000 in the matrimonial proceeding, and also ordered that he was prohibited from initiating any motion in that proceeding except for a review of interim support upon filing relevant financial information. Mr. Curle was ordered to pay costs of $3,500. As of the date of this motion, Mr. Curle has not posted security for costs nor paid costs of the motion.

(k) Mr. Curle maintains that he, as a “natural person,” is not subject to the taxing powers of the government or the courts. He has refused to file tax returns or supply information. In June, 2012, Mr Curle was charged with tax evasion. Trial commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice in September, 2013. Canada Revenue Agency alleges that Mr. Curle has not filed a tax return since the 2006 tax year. In that proceeding, Mr. Curle claimed not to be the accused, “Allan James Curle,” but rather “Allan James of the Curle Family,” and asserted that he was appearing under duress.

(l) In March, 2013, Mr. Curle was charged with driving while under suspension. At his first appearance, Mr. Curle advised the presiding Justice of the Peace that he appeared under duress as “the human being Allan James Curle” and not the legal fiction to whom the offence related. He objected to the court’s jurisdiction at trial and was convicted in absentia.

(m) In August, 2013, prior to his trial for driving under suspension, Mr. Curle commenced a civil suit in the Superior Court against Her Majesty in Right of Ontario and the police officer who charged him with driving while suspended. Mr. Curle claimed damages for breaching his rights as Allan James Curle, “the natural person” or “human being.” Mr. Curle gave the prosecutor a copy of the statement claim before his trial for driving while suspended commenced. I take judicial notice of the fact that Mr. Curle’s civil action was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, as the motion was argued before me. Costs were ordered against Mr. Curle.

(n) In addition to his conduct in the above court proceedings, Mr. Curle has opposed disclosure of his income from the Norall Group and threatened law suits against a shareholder, former director, and corporate solicitor, should they make disclosure in accordance with Justice Shaw’s order. He has threatened to sue Ms. Curle’s family law solicitor as well.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Carl, I'd just like to add my welcome and best wishes to those already offered by others on the forum. I very much hope things go very well for you.

I also want to add my thanks for sharing your experience with us. I think one of the major issues with the OPCA phenomenon is that we (the general public) really don't know what it looks and feels like from the inside. I hope you wouldn't mind a few questions from me on that basis.

In reading your account, I noticed that it seemed you were introduced to the Poriskyite concepts via personal acquaintances. There seems to be a common belief that OPCA concepts spread largely by the Internet - people just surf or search their way to these ideas - but the more I've studied the phenomenon, it seems interest in Freeman, Sovereign, and Detaxer ideas spreads from peer to peer - it's friends and close acquaintances who introduce new persons to these ideas. Any thoughts on what you observed?

Another point that struck me in reading your narrative was the obvious appreciation you had for 'the other side' and the court apparatus. Can you share what you thought those people did right? Was it simply a professional, judicial approach, or was there more?

Also, and this is rather an open-ended question, do you have suggestions on how the courts and state could better respond to OPCA phenomena? Of late in Canada the judiciary is writing much more detailed analyses to explore and refute Freeman, Sovereign, and Detaxer concepts. Did that make a difference to you? There has also arguably been a 'hardening' of court and state response - for example more aggressive cost awards. Were you aware of that, and did that make a difference?

I don't know if you have read the very recent Fearn v. Canada Customs case (http://canlii.ca/t/g5bx8), but it clearly encourages that OPCA gurus be a direct subject of legal action. Would that have made an impression on you, if you knew that persons promoting these ideas were personally unsuccessful in court and faced criminal sanction for what they were teaching?

A quick comment on when a published decision is likely; my experience has been that where there are multiple defendants in a single action, and some defendants plead guilty, normally the judge will wait until the proceeding is entirely resolved before preparing a written judgment. Piecemeal treatment of litigants usually means they were involved in entirely separate trials.

Again Carl, I very much appreciate you taking the time to share your story and perspective.

All the very best.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Revisiting the cast of characters in this tale of woe we find that Alan Curle, the other litigant, is now a vexatious litigant.

Curle's 2004 case is also reported:

• Curle v. Lowe, 2004 CanLII 22947 (ON SC): http://canlii.ca/t/1hscn

Curle sued his ex-partner and mother of his child in tort for depriving him of access to that child. The action was struck as contrary to public policy: para. 18.

Mr. Curle appears to have already succumbed to OPCA temptation, since he is named in the style of cause as "ALLAN JAMES CURLE, a natural person".

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Fussygus said - I always knew what I was looking for was going to be real simple. That once I figured it out all the interpretation of the law would become self evident. That the law wasn't a confusing mess intent on misleading us into servitude, the law could be understood without being read.

This is a common fallacy promoted by predatory gurus, that the tax law is actually, if you get past the legalese, simple for people in the know to interpret and apply to their own advantage. You turn the magic key they give you and the door suddenly unlocks. I spent 35 years in the CRA as an income tax auditor specializing in a very complicated area (try reading sections 85, 86, and 87 of the Canadian Income Tax Act; these were just the introductions to my job) and I was considered highly knowledgeable in my understanding of the Act as it applied to what I did. Yet I felt I had only a basic working understanding; I stand in awe of the abilities of the best of the outside tax lawyers who opposed me. Tax law is incredibly difficult, there is no legislation more complex, and there is no guru-discovered magic bullet to cut the Gordian knot. But totally naive people seem to think that morons like Porisky (a carpenter) or, in the US, Pete Hendrickson (an apartment manager)have found a way to legally screw the system. It constantly amazed me when I dealt with them, still does.

[Fussygus]

In regards to your response to my quote about understanding the law, I would like to clarify my statement.

(I will shorten my response from what I originally drafted then lost when I sent.)

When I say the law is easy, I don't mean easy in the sense of wrapping your head around the interpretation of the words written. As you yourself confess, as a seasoned professional who was engage in the specific task of interpreting the ITA, that you only had a basic working knowledge of the ITA. It is a daunting task for sure to interpret the ITA by any stretch. It is a monster to anyone who would dare consider engaging in the task. So as a seasoned professional I'm sure you can imagine what such a monster means to the common man when faced with the prospect of facing it.

Everyone wants some semblance of control over their lives, some people more than others, but in the end you want to know you are free to a reasonable extent. To be free is to know, to understand and be able to make a rational decision about your future...to not be ignorant.

The ITA (specifically in this case, but more generally statute law in it's entirety) is a monster that hangs over everyone's head. It imposes it's will over your ignorance and makes you feel week and vulnerable to it and anyone who would pursue you over it. It makes you like you are naked while the T-Rex ITA monster backs you against a wall, with an endless clan of masked minions with cattle prods there to attack you should you dare go against the wishes of the T-Rex monster. The T-Rex is the school bully blocking you way from getting out of the gym shower and his minion henchmen stole your towel. You are left feeling absolutely vulnerable and submissive to the whims of the T-Rex and his henchmen, even though it may likely only in your mind. That the entire existence of the T-Rex is a creation of your mind out of your ignorance.

So want do you do with any bully? Well history has proven to me that the best way to overcome a bully is to set aside your fear and face them. Face them honourably.

It wasn't until I overcame my fears and faced the Monster and his masked henchmen. I went to his lair and asked the henchmen a question about the Monster. To which over time they responded, they removed their masks (figurative masks of course) and exposed themselves as being people just like me. They too were afraid of the Monster, but knew enough (like you) to know how to rub it's belly and keep it from growling. They received training in this regard and subsequently did what their training showed them. They were also willing to show me insight into what their training had taught them. They could not with absolute certainty confirm anything, but they could with relative certainty come to a reasonable interpretation according to their training. They couldn't be taught everything. At some point the Monster is too big for even the most knowledgeable person to understand completely. Does this make it wrong? Absolutely not! Because if you really thing of it, it was written by people just like us based on a need.

You don't write a law requiring fall protection for construction workers because no harm has been done, you write it because there is a need. Because society deems it necessary. In the words of a good friend of mine, every law in the Occupational Health and Safety Act has blood on it. It was written because it was deemed necessary to protect the people that are part of our society.

So back to the original point about my comment that the law is easy to understand, I mean it is easy if you understand the circumstances that one would consider when writing the law. If you were one of the people responsible for drafting the law and were given all the reasons to consider for the adoption of ANY law, I would garner that if you relied on your conscious as to what the law should say, you would likely come to the same conclusion as did our those that did decide. Because all else set aside the law is the consciousness of man (and women of course) simply put into a reasonable format for clarity.

Would we rather that each and every one of us has to draft their own terms for vehicle insurance coverage, or would we rather that the legislature as a representative of us create a law which dictates reasonable terms? So that we can be doing better things with our time like playing with our children.

Trust that the law is based on our consciousness, then consider what things might be necessary, then you will probably find what is written likely corroborates with what you thought it should say. (of course there is still the issue of how much time are you going to spend?)

Now sure there will be cases where it doesn't necessarily corroborate with your conscious. In those cases one should raise issue, because the law is written by men just like us. And just as we aren't perfect, neither is it. But if you do so, be prepared to realize that maybe you didn't have all the variables before you solved the equation.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Thomas Jefferson

Respectfully,
Carl

So much for shortening the reply

[notorial dissent]

Porisky and Hendrickson have NOT found a way(s) to screw the tax system, but have very definitely found ways to screw around with the system which ultimately ends with them totally screwing over themselves, their followers and their lives thereafter.

[Burnaby49]

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Thomas Jefferson

While that makes for a nice soundbite Jefferson never said it. A spurious quote which appears to have surfaced in the 1960s to justify protests against the US government.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso ... -quotation

[Fussygus]

Touche' Burnaby. But it still sounded good relative to the content of my post. That being a need for us in society to continually review and bring forth those issues that may operate against our consciousness. Because in doing so we are helping to bring about the continual improvement on that which we as a society have created.

Carl

"Conscience is the root of true courage; if a man would be brave let him obey his conscience" James Freeman Clarke

[Fussygus]

In response to Mowe, thanks for the well wishes.

In regards to your inquiry, I would definitely say that I was exposed to the various concepts through a direct acquaintance who I worked with. Otherwise, I doubt I really would have even conceived of the idea. I would say though I would likely have quietly maintained my ignorance or suppressed it otherwise. But definitely it wasn't something I was really looking for in the first instance. I think he discovered it due to his dissatisfaction with the legal system and subsequent surfing on issues that weren't directly related to taxes. I don't recall any local contacts or sources bringing this stuff to light.

I spoke extensively with my friends, family and employees about things that I discovered. In some ways I would say it was a passionate endeavour to undercover the truth. I'm sure if you asked anyone they would agree that I had very strong beliefs in this regard, but I would think they also noticed the changes as I went along. The change from specific interpretation of the laws to theoretical analysis of how the law applies.

"The other side" of the court

In this regard I would say that the way the individuals dealt with me made me start to question things. Question what their motives were and intent. After being exposed to the extensive propaganda of the OPCA type things, you become very sceptical of everyone who works in this system. You believe that those who administer the process were simply out there to secure the maximum advantage they could. But you start to question that belief once you face them. I think in ways I was lucky during that first MNR trial. All the preliminary processes were held in a small community, and generally there were only a few people there other than me, sometimes a friend of mine who just came for a drive, the two officers and the prosecutor. We would end up waiting in this tiny lobby outside the courtroom to a point we couldn't avoid each other. At some point one of us broke the ice and actually talked to the other side, just small talk about the weather etc, but the ice was broken. Over the next couple months of adjournments etc, in the same place we became more open and such, specifically me and the officers. We talked about our plans for Christmas and such, where each of us if from and about our families. It became obvious to me that there were things that they did that they may have regretted just as I kind of thought about myself. They were no longer faceless minions, they were individuals trying to make a living and provide for their families. What they did was no different than what I do, other than they do it with a gun and a very specific if not perfectly clear procedure manual. They weren't any more intent on "getting me" than I was intent on screwing my clients. They were just doing their job based on how they were trained and how they interpreted they should based on the given situation. The fact it was me didn't make it a personal attack. When what occurred didn't match what they were trained at, then they reacted as their conscious dictated. I didn't agree with their reaction at the time, but I can certainly understand it now and definitely forgive it.

Through the process the prosecutor was very respectful of myself and though he didn't agree with my position, I can respect his. The Justice of the Peace in the end left me with the feeling that she did honestly care about what I had to say, that I wasn't just a simple jackass who was looking to skirt the system by some technicality. I think she knew what I was getting at in the trial in spite of my failure to bring it forth, but more importantly I got the feeling she really understood what I was looking for. That what I was looking for had nothing to do with the case at all, and she knew I was getting there.

Going through this gave me confidence to go forward on the CRA charges and face my accusers. To face them as if they were real people too, not masked faceless minions. It was certainly awkward at first, but after we finally started talking, it became less an attack on me and more an issue with what I did. They didn't disrespect me because of what I did, the respect remained, they honestly tried to communicate to me the problem with what I had done. But it is one thing to know the answer is X, and wholly another to explain why the answer is X. I appreciate now that they are trained to know the answer is X, not necessarily all theory as to why the answer is X. To train every officer of the intricacies of the law, no matter what it is, is essentially impossible and fiscally irresponsible. To train every single front line officer about all the details of the battle plan would result in loosing the war because everyone would be sitting in offices getting training while the opposing army invaded. In this case would society agree that their taxes should be increased 50% so that every single front line worker understanding the underlying theory of the law in order to enforce it? Frankly, I doubt it.

So in the end I am extremely appreciative to those officers that were so patient and considerate in dealing with my ignorance.

Did I think there was anything wrong with the process?

In hindsight I might have thought I could have come to my final conclusion earlier if they acted differently, but I doubt it. Sometimes you need the pressure of the situation in order to force you to face your fears to gain the required focus.
I did have some feelings of being taken advantage because of my lack of resources. And I voiced these concerns after the fact to the prosecutor. But my concerns were out of jealousy, because of what others got, rather than for any legitimate reason. Why shouldn't I be comparable bad just as much as the good? The argument can go both ways, so just because there is an easier, doesn't mean it should apply to me. So even on that point I have no misgivings whatsoever, what I got was completely reasonable.

So in this instance I did not have any significant issues with the process. I have the utmost respect for everyone I dealt with in the process. (I do have issues with the other court processes, but will get into those later.)

OPCA Phenomena Query

I don't think much of what the courts were doing in other cases had much to bare on my decisions. As I indicated, it was more the people than the paper. I could read all the ruling and still come to a conclusion of conspiracy/fraud/servitude, those didn't really play into my decision so much as the individuals I dealt with and just gaining a better understanding of my responsibility within the community. The current method of overcoming the issue is by threats, by Gestapo S.S. intimidation ("Your papers" or else). Is this the only method, or is it simply that this method worked for 80 years, so we keep using it, rather than re-evaluating the process?

I think of how employees were treated in the old days. In construction the methods were based on yelling and screaming to get production. The boss was an acceptable asshole. Men worked because they wanted to get paid, instructions were in the form of yelling. Now throw a 20 year old today in this type of environment and see what happens? Now as days an organization cannot operate like that because it wouldn't be long before they lost all their workers.

People aren't told that they must be safe at work, safety is explained to them. Safety is detailed extensively to outline the inherent dangers of their trade and given examples of what simple things can be so critical. (Worker goes into same manhole every week for 20 years, no problem. 21 year he dies of asphyxiation - telling someone across the country not to go in manholes because the code says not to isn't going to stop him if he has done so for 20 years because he won't understand without the example).

As I see it now the large part of the deterrence is basic, "Tax Myths - don't believe them" or court rulings. In the first people might feel you are treating them as idiots, in the second sense they feel like idiots. "Don't go into manholes without a harness" - call them an idiot; "Applicant A was exposed to increased levels of Nitrogen atoms, and particulate mater, while being in a depleted Oxygen atmosphere for a period beyond the exposure limit at the subterranean service access point. Once the exposure limit created an accumulation within the internal cardiac system, then Applicant A had an acute hallucinogenic episode. To which he rapidly accelerated towards the bearing stratum of the subterranean access vessel and then upon arrival at the bearing stratum underwent inverse acceleration to the cranial vessel, which resulted in internal hemorrhaging of the processor, and eventual discharging of the applicants control system." - make them feel like an idiot.

So this part of the discussion just gives my thoughts on the issue of dealing with the OPCA issue. So I'm not asking for rebuttal to what I say, there very well may be something available out there that might contradict these thought, but I hadn't seen it.

With regards to Fearn v. Canada Customs, I will give it a read and further post what I think.

And no problem, my pleasure. I appreciate being able to express myself on the issue and hope in some small way it helps some other come to peace with where we stand as a society. If only to give them reason to reconsider the source of their displeasure.

Respectfully,
Carl