Carl Gustafson: Poriskyite Engineer

[Fussygus]

A couple of interesting points from Fearn v. Canada Customs:

He claims to that he follows the Magna Carta as being bearing on him and of the common law.

As I understand it generally speaking, the Magna Carta came about because of the people having issue with what the King was doing or not doing. To which they together as a group drafted the document which they thought would address the problems that they feel existed in their society. They brought this document to the King, and said they wanted it to be enforced by him as a law. With some persuasion he agreed

Whatever you decide is the method of enforcing the law, common or civil, doesn't change that it was a law by the people for the good of the people. The people agree to give up certain personal freedoms in exchange for certainty of understanding between each of them and the King. Essentially they wanted it brought forth from this day forward that everyone shall drive on the right hand side of the road (or in their case left).

Now do you think every person in the society was involved in the drafting of the Magna Carta? Do you think everyone's concerns were addressed in it? Do you think every single person agreed with every single clause of the Magna Carta? Obviously not, but clearly a large portion agree there was a problem and at some point assigned someone the task of prepare a draft of what turned out to be the Magna Carta.

The point is, if Mr.Fearns thinks the Magna Carta is somehow superior to any of the laws we have in place today, then he is forgetting how the Magna Carta came to be. The fact that all the laws we have in place today were developed in the same way as the Magna Carta was. They were developed because the people thought there was a need and then brought that need forward to the legislature for consideration. The legislature being considered the will of the people (because they are the representatives of the people) then reviews the drafts; considers the need; discusses and makes possible amendments; decides in the end whether THEY think it should be brought forward as a law; then brings it to the King for adoption. In the Magna Carta they maybe had a knife to the Kings throat, in our case it is pretty much a rubber stamp by the governor general. The laws we have in place today are simply the extension of clarification on the Magna Carta that the people have asked for.

Mr.Fearns would like to erase all the advances in societies rules and go back to the basic Magna Carta. I think if he actually understood what he was giving up he would think twice about what he claims. Imagine how he would feel if one of his loved ones died because two cars collided at an intersection of two roads. There is nothing about stop signs and a requirement to obey them in the Magna Carta!

I believe it used to be lawful to beat your wife with a willow branch, as long as it was no thicker than your index finger (or something like that). Or that the punishment for cattle rustling was death. Or high treason may have been considered any act against the rule of the King and likewise punishable by death. Would attacking the King's rule not bring about a claim of treason?

Mr.Fearn's is free to find a society that my function based only on the ancient principals of the Magna Carta. Maybe there is one buried deep in the amazon jungle or somewhere in middle Africa. I can imagine there are tribes that function in a way similar to how the Magna Carta function (no roads, chief decides all conflict exclusively, health care consists of rubbing mud on the soles of ones feet, women are property of the man). But as it stands THIS society, and the lands that it occupies, operate on the laws that have been enacted by it.

Carl

[notorial dissent]

Fearn is either kidding himself or anyone dumb enough to listen to him if that is what he believes.

In the first place, Magna Carta had next to nothing to do with him, or his status in life.

Magna Carta came about because John was such an excrible and oppressive king that his own Norman nobles basically rebelled against his authority, and rather than bringing the document to him, they brought him to the document, quite literally at sword point, at Runeymede. They were in fact in open rebellion against their king, and forced him to sign the charter, which guaranteed their (the noble's) rights. John, of course, reneged as soon as he could safely get away from them, and was later once again forced to acceed to their demands.

As to it having any force for any of Fearn's flights of fancy, a Parliamentary investigation reported that almost all of the Charter had been voided or replaced with further "statute" law, which is what the Charter was, by Victorian times, and as I recall the last of the clauses bit the dust sometime in the 20th C, so, Fearn's claims are just so much fantasy.

I'm quite sure Fearn would love going back to Magna Carta times, he'd look so cute in a serf's gown and collar, for that is certainly what he would be wearing.

Fearn is a fool and an idiot, and a dangerous one at that.

[Pottapaug1938]

I don't think that Fearn has ever read the actual Magna Carta, for if he had he would realize how irrelevant to modern life almost all of it is (with Clause 39, the "due process" clause, being valid only as an antecedent of the due process clauses in our own Constitution).

I get the feeling that he envisions the "Magna Carta" as some sort of preeminent fount of our liberties, which cannot be abridged or changed and which is still in full effect today; and by invoking the Magna Carta in support of his fantasies, he is essentially making a political incantation of magic words which (are intended to) make the mean ol' minions of the gummint beat a hasty retreat.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I believe the technical and legalese term for that is "a magic wand".

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Curle and Johnson convicted of tax evasion and get significant jail time (well, significant for Canada, we just giving pats on the wrist compared to American tax evasion sentences). This from the CRA website;

Directors fined and sentenced for tax evasion
Thunder Bay, Ontario, June 16, 2014... The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) announced today that Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson were sentenced on June 2, 2014, in the Ontario Court of Justice in Thunder Bay, to a total of 24 months in jail and a total fine of $305,073. On March 21, 2014, Curle and Johnson, as directors of Norall Group Contracting Inc. (Norall), were found guilty, in the same court, of one count each of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion. Curle was given 14 months jail time and fined $174,729 and Johnson was given 10 months jail time and fined $130,344. The fines represent 100% of the federal taxes each evaded plus 50% of the cumulative total of federal income taxes evaded by the parties involved in the conspiracy to evade taxes. Curle, Johnson and a third individual involved, evaded a total of $196,428 in federal income taxes.

Also related to this matter, on December 2, 2013, Norall pleaded guilty, in the Ontario Court of Justice in Thunder Bay, to one count of conspiracy to commit tax evasion and was sentenced to a fine of $32,118.

A CRA investigation found that Curle and Johnson followed a tax evasion scheme based on the “natural persons” argument and in doing so failed to report $629,842 in income. The unreported income was paid to Curle and Johnson by Norall, for services rendered. The natural persons argument is based on the principal of treating oneself as two people (natural and legal), where the legal person is obligated to file an income tax and benefit return and that income received as a natural person is not subject to Canadian income tax.

The preceding information was obtained from the court records.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/cnvctns/ ... 6-eng.html

The decision is not yet released. I'll post it when it shows up. Note the comment;

Curle, Johnson and a third individual involved, evaded a total of $196,428 in federal income taxes.

The third individual is none other than our own contributor Fussygus who had the sense to plead guilty and, I think, got off with a fine.

[Burnaby49]

While this discussion thread was initially about Carl Gustafson's tax evasion conviction that topic is essentially over and the thread has evolved to considering the antics of Allan Curle, one of Carl's co-accused in the tax case. I see a big future for Curle as a Quatloos subject so I've given him his own discussion thread and cut Carl out of the loop. Just too confusing discussing a Dean Clifford wannabe Freeman under a tax discussion opened under somebody else's name. So, if there are any comments on my last posting about Curle's tax evasion conviction please make them here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10060