hi guys! im commonly known as bmxninja357....

[bmxninja357]

@ Burnaby49,

hello. im interested in learning about many legal aspects. tax law is in that pool. and i dont remember the names on a couple cases i heard about on cbc and some other news thing. something about a hotel owner in bc? it will come to me, will post when i remember. i guess i would have confirmation bias thus far as most information presented on tax via news is about as accurate as news reports on freeman on the land stuff. most of them like me probably know as much about the tax act as the directions to the accountant.

and im here to discuss and see if we cant all figure a few differences out.

there will be more to come. im just a bit tired as im fighting a neck problem and its kinda keeping me up so my thoughts are a little slow today.

peace,
ninj

[bmxninja357]

@ Burnaby49,

heres one of the shows i watched that you can shed a new light on,

http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/are-all-canadi ... -1.1225858

will post a couple others when i find them/remember where i saw them.

peace,
ninj

[Burnaby49]

Sorry ninja, I was probably overly harsh. No excuse except you touched a sore point. I spent 35 years at CRA, both as a front line tax auditor and as a supervisor of a specialized audit team so I have a very extensive knowledge of how the working level Canadian income tax system actually works. As my accumulated posts show I don't claim the CRA is perfect or even necessarily fair but they do their best. There are horror stories but any government organization with the power of the CRA accumulates them and, overall, I think the CRA does a good job.

I have no problem debating the issue of whether the CRA oppresses Canadian freemen but I need to be countered by facts. Unsubstantiated comments and criticisms just don't cut it. I make no claims in support of my arguments regarding tax law or favourable court decisions unless I can back them up with citations and I expect the same. Since the ultimate test of all opinions, interpretations, viewpoints, and arguments about tax law, including freeman beliefs, is the decisions of the Tax Court and the Federal Court of Appeals I don't think this unfair. These court decisions are the only criteria to debate how effective freemen tax positions are.

Freeman argue about how they are right even if they lose because the courts are corrupt. I don't believe that but even if this is correct so what? That is what you face and the courts and police have the power to enforce their judgments. So freemen can only win if the courts of Canada decide in your favour. To this point the courts have declined to do so and, while you have given some unsupported comments about some freeman wins, I am not aware of any favourable judgments in any Canadian court.

When I completed files as a CRA employee I always based my final position on one question. If I don't get agreement or a negotiated settlement from the taxpayer do I want to defend this assessment at Tax Court? That is the reality check that CRA employees face. They sometimes fail it but it is always there.

A point about your comment on the Tax Court and penalties. The Tax Court cannot impose penalties. All they can do is confirm or reverse penalties imposed by the CRA which are based on the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Some of the cases I cited involved taxpayers who abandoned their indefensible positions but argued that these positions were not offensive enough to warrant penalties in addition to taxes owing. They lost because the Tax Court disagreed.

[arayder]

I've not previously posted in this discussion but was goaded to do so by a comment from bmxninja357;

@jeffery

and really even folks who pay their taxes in full on time occasionally get screwed on the deal. tax court is little more than a kangaroo court where guilt is all but assumed and you're only waiting on a penalty.

The reference is to the Tax Court of Canada, a court I have vastly more acquaintance with than bmxninja357 (I testified there as an expert witness dozens of times) and there is nothing "kangaroo court" about it. However freemen and sovereigns get their panties in a knot over Tax Court because they always lose there, you know, the same way they always lose in every other court.. .

The "New Freemen" have started using the "we want good government" ruse. It would help in making the ruse work if they knew something about the law, history and government itself. That way freemen might actually sound like they know what they are talking about.

I think freemen have heard politicians claim they are good guys and gals wanting only to make government work. . .and they figured that sounded like a good line which might help make freemanary sound less crazy.

But if you scrape veneer off the "new freeman" you'll see the same old self-centered, ignorant, mindless hatred of authority.

[bmxninja357]

Sorry ninja, I was probably overly harsh.

dont worry about that at all, i got a fairly thick skin. i did not come here with intent of being coddled. in fact i have been given a far better shake than i expected. although there are a few i will not answer for obvious reasons.

I have no problem debating the issue of whether the CRA oppresses Canadian freemen but I need to be countered by facts.

im not of the school of thought that the tax man (for lack of a better phrase) picks specifically on freemen or freemen on the land. there is cases of straight and narrow folks getting the gears also. and im not really going to bother with trying to justify those who do not pay tax for moral reasons. actions such as those must come with a consequence. as i said in an earlier post things done in protest for some type of moral reason come with the martyrs reward.

Freeman argue about how they are right even if they lose because the courts are corrupt. I don't believe that but even if this is correct so what?

i do agree that when fighting fire its best not to cover ones self in gas and light a joint and run at the fire yelling, "f*ck you tax man!"

as i only really speak for myself i am not anti tax. i said in an earlier post that being pro good gov i understand that the gov does not pay for itself. bridges, schools and hospitals dont build them self. i am opposed to how taxes are spent, the rates of taxation (from what i understand of them) and the ability of those with a lot of money, or large corporations, to seemingly dance around having to pay their fair share. and as usual, i would be more for laws that can punish being written in a fashion the common man could understand without having to pay someone to do it for ya. and i think i would be more supportive of a flat tax. but that could all be simply my lack of understanding of things. taxes seem to be a complex topic and i look forward to furrowing my unibrow in a vain attempt to understand the subject.

peace,
ninj

[LordEd]

i am opposed to how taxes are spent, the rates of taxation (from what i understand of them) and the ability of those with a lot of money, or large corporations, to seemingly dance around having to pay their fair share.

As mentioned before, these are "normal" political mainstream arguments and beliefs.

I am definitely not the expert, but part of the theory on low corporate taxes is that corporations are run by people. If you have more corporations in your country, more people are working. As soon as 'corporate' money goes to a person, it gets taxed at full rate. If you see corporate Bob getting a large bonus, that bonus is taxable income at that point and getting hit for a good percentage. If a corporation buys equipment, that money flows into the equipment building company, who spends it to buy parts (which are taxed), and labor (who get taxed). If investors make money on a corporation through shares, those gains are taxed.

I would suspect that although there are ways to 'minimize' your tax payment (which is your right to do), there are plenty of those like burnaby watching to make sure the coloring stays within the lines, and to hammer those who draw outside.

For your posted article, I read it as 103 people found for investigation, 25 worth 'going after' (investigations have costs, of course), and judgements of $22 million (or almost 1 million per person convicted). 8 million collected, with 14 million remaining, and I believe they have a fairly broad ability to seize assets. Those people are probably under microscopes for a few years and might be paying more taxes now.

Rather than looking at it as the rich getting away with something, I see it as the rich being taken to task for breaking the law. Just like not every 'travelling' freeman gets pulled over on every trip, not every rich tax evader gets caught or convicted. The more you do it, the more likely you are going to get caught.

And not every infraction leads to a stiff penalty. In the Nanaimo peace officer personation thread, Mr. Ream 'went the distance', was convicted, and given almost as light a penalty as possible and a "don't do it again'.

[Burnaby49]

By the way Ninja, are you aware that your compatriot Meta seems to be advising this woman?

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10082

Her plight is laid out in detail in my posting but, in a nutshell, she spent years in Canada illegally. Built a life here and made her home in Vernon. She was caught and deported to Washington state and desperately wants to get back. So she made a plea to the World Freeman Society for help;

https://worldfreemansociety.org/forum/1 ... -some-help

and the only response she got was Meta who said he wanted to communicate privately. I assume they have done so and he is advising her because she has suddenly become a huge fan of Dean Clifford and seems to be trying to get back based on, and I quote "Dean Clifford's wisdom". I don't know what her chances of getting back into Canada legally are but I can pretty much guarantee that if she tries through the application of Dean's teachings she is doomed.

[arayder]

. . .im not of the school of thought that the tax man (for lack of a better phrase) picks specifically on freemen or freemen on the land.

. . .i do agree that when fighting fire its best not to cover ones self in gas and light a joint and run at the fire yelling, "f*ck you tax man!"

. . .i only really speak for myself i am not anti tax. i said in an earlier post that being pro good gov i understand that the gov does not pay for itself. bridges, schools and hospitals dont build them self. i am opposed to how taxes are spent, the rates of taxation (from what i understand of them) and the ability of those with a lot of money, or large corporations, to seemingly dance around having to pay their fair share. and as usual, i would be more for laws that can punish being written in a fashion the common man could understand without having to pay someone to do it for ya. and i think i would be more supportive of a flat tax.

So it would seem our new friend is no freeman at all!

[LordEd]

i do belive that rights are being turned into privileges.

Question: Can you give an example of a right that is being turned into a privilege?

[Burnaby49]

Regarding your linked article.

I don't know the details about the two individual's cases but they are probably accurately reported. While there are multiple checks and balances the CRA, like any large bureaucratic organization, screws up from time to time. They seem to have done so in these cases and individuals like Fulcher and Ericksen suffer from it. When this happens I have no intention of trying to defend or justify CRA's actions, the bad publicity is well deserved.

The Liechtenstein files are a complex issue that few outside the CRA know much about. I certainly don't.

But 106 other Canadians, much richer and with more resources, took a different approach to their tax obligations. They put their money, a total of more than $100 million, into 47 accounts in the tiny tax haven principality of Liechtenstein.

W5 asked the CRA about the 106 Canadians. The CRA says all were audited and 25 were reassessed. After those audits were completed, the back taxes, interest and penalties totaled $22 million but so far only $8 million has been collected.

The CRA says its investigation is complete and no tax evasion charges will be laid.

Based on this, if all were audited, there is the possibility that most of the taxpayers, while holding money overseas, were not actually evading taxes on it. Evasion is criminal and extremely hard to prove. If there was only $100 million in 47 accounts then these are not large accounts and the $22 million assessed is a significant portion of the total. The article notes that most of the assessed amounts have not been collected but that is a problem the CRA faces from a large percentage of assessments. The CRA has a large dedicated collection function but, like all collection agencies, it fails as often as it succeeds.

[bmxninja357]

@ Burnaby49

i think i have been extremely clear to my fellow freemen and freemen on the land how well the clifford method works. i did that so others have a clear reference. at first i thought that maybe he believed in what he was doing, and was going to use the trial and error method to figure some things out. but the more he talked, the less i liked him. as one who has been through the system i know when a con is plying his trade. i know many here do not agree with many folks i do like, but i assure you clifford is duping the gullible and i hope he gets what he deserves; legally speaking.

i think i have done my part on that issue. if people want to ride his coat tails to jail its their folly. do your own research includes checking the quality of the source of your information.

peace,
ninj
x

[Burnaby49]

@ Burnaby49

i think i have been extremely clear to my fellow freemen and freemen on the land how well the clifford method works. i did that so others have a clear reference. at first i thought that maybe he believed in what he was doing, and was going to use the trial and error method to figure some things out. but the more he talked, the less i liked him. as one who has been through the system i know when a con is plying his trade. i know many here do not agree with many folks i do like, but i assure you clifford is duping the gullible and i hope he gets what he deserves; legally speaking.

i think i have done my part on that issue. if people want to ride his coat tails to jail its their folly. do your own research includes checking the quality of the source of your information.

peace,
ninj
x

Agreed. You have done what you can to disabuse your fellow World Freeman Society posters of their Dean Clifford delusions. However Meta is beyond rational sense. I didn't comment on Meta helping DiamondLady as a criticizm of you (you banned Meta from the Dean Clifford thread) but to point out the fallout from some Freeman beliefs. As you'll note I called DiamondLady a nitwit for relying on Dean. Her foolishness in grasping at the advice of idiots like Dean and Meta is going to cost her.

[bmxninja357]

i do belive that rights are being turned into privileges.

Question: Can you give an example of a right that is being turned into a privilege?

ya know i just deleted my answer as its hard to find the right words. problem is i know what i want to say but i suspect it may get ripped to shreds for the wrong reason. i will come back to this when i find the words for a proper debate forum.

peace,
ninj

[bmxninja357]

@ Burnaby49

i am not comfortable discussing other posters on other boards where i am a participant or moderator. im not exactly sure dean was a member of the wfs, if he was i don't really recall it.

and for clarity the poster you mentioned was suspended from the site not the thread. although he has tried to return under different names several times now.

peace,
ninj

[Burnaby49]

@ Burnaby49

i am not comfortable discussing other posters on other boards where i am a participant or moderator. im not exactly sure dean was a member of the wfs, if he was i don't really recall it.

and for clarity the poster you mentioned was suspended from the site not the thread. although he has tried to return under different names several times now.

peace,
ninj

I wasn't saying that Dean was a WFS member or poster. I have no reason to assume he was. My comment was that he was discussed there.

I've noted Meta's trolling. He can't hide his distinct personality.

[LordEd]

My style is different than others here.

Start with a sentence. I'll ask questions, or perhaps re-word and ask a question to see if that wording is agreeable. We revise the sentence. At the end of the cycle, perhaps there will be a single statement that everyone agrees with, or at least knowledge of where the disagreement sits.

Its a slow process, and not guaranteed success, but its how I dissect these beliefs.

[arayder]

It seems to me that freemanary is going to have to decide what it is.

Is it a loosely associated group of free people living on the land which denies the authority and jurisdiction of the western democracies including their constitutions and their statutes?

Or is it a neo-conservative movement endorsing good government?

Or is it, as Bobby Menard says "spiritual libertarianism"?

The cynical might say freemanary is whatever it needs to be based on the individual or group a freeman wants to get over at the particular moment.

Such a cynic might say that if you are Menard in a Toronto TV station interview you don't talk about plans to arm your private vigilantes. You talk about the merits of limited government.

If you are Dean Clifford standing before a room full of paying freemen and freewomen you don't talk about personal responsibility. You talk about beating the tax man and the traffic cop.

Or you could gather with a bunch of freeman debunkers and tell them you are merely a truth seeker, the cynic might say.

[Jeffrey]

Dean mentions in at least one Seminar that he was working with World Freeman Society.

And I think the duplicity by Freemen needs to be addressed. We know Freeman-ism started with Mary Elizabeth Croft trying to get free money from credit card companies. We know it also started with Menard promising people free electricity, free hamburgers, etc. Now you're trying to pretend it's actually a politically spiritually libertarian thing.

Where are you guys going with this?

[The_Nidhogg]

I was saving this for an entry on the Scottish freemen's warped view of public law, but i think it chimes nicely with whats being discussed here now- the sovs very briefly veered off topic into what a sc/fmotl is to them. i saved the chat log:

Bob Free2Bme
sovs isnt a 'switch' or get out of jail free card.. its different things to different folks.. to me its realising i am just a man.. thats all.. jsut a man


Grant
to me it means living causing as little harm as possible, to everything around you.

Bob Free2Bme
with fellow golden hearted brothers n sisters


gerald son of hugh
for me its quite political as i want to fight the monster face to face as that works for me just ask jim sillars as i hit him with some truths last week.


Grant
the monster is one of the things that harms gerald.


Grant
so needs to be fought.



gerald son of hugh
if i can i will hit a couple of others to if ican with some home truths.they dont like that but they work for us lol

Grant
i need to get wasted.
gerald son of hugh
lol
cath
lol

disclaimer: i removed the endless rounds of hi X and nn Y as users logged on and off.

I don't buy the whole 'I'm just a man who wants to be free'. It seems to translate in practice to wanting to be free from paying taxes and fines but having unlimited access to free money from the government and banks. bmxninja may be the exception but that is my impression of freemanry in general.

[bmxninja357]

the freeman on the land thing can be traced back to rob, in my view, from when i began my involvement. (and to be clear i would consider rob a friend to this day, so please refrain from using this thread as an attack on rob. i believe there is already one or two of those here already.)

it was some time later that i heard of mary croft. i have never had all that much appreciation for her theories. i will say i think many feel deceived by the deals they get into with credit companies and banks and those sorts of things.

i think im more the type that would say why get a loan you don't intend to pay back for something you don't need and then claim you don't have to pay because you don't like how money is made, or the fact you have to work to get it.

and to say libertarian, maybe. if that definition includes good governance that interferes as little as possibly in the lives of the private individual, and doesnt have a hyper inflated sense of entitlement; as well as an ability to seem to dance around things that would get a common man a world of sh*t. (to qualify that think brian mulroney's cheap hotel bags o' money and redfords luxury suite and travel bills for starters). a legal system and tax system that is simplified in style and clarity so virtually anyone can use it without having to pay a third party to interpret it for you, and communities that get a far greater say in the 'laws' that govern the people of their distinct geographic area. that is to say the folks in a place like an east hasting neighborhood may want a massively different set of laws from those who live in a place like melville sask.

and im not sure about this whole "politically spiritually libertarian thing". that sounds a little off base. im an atheist who thinks most spiritual bs is a bigger crock than anything. its gave me a laugh for a while now when folks mix imaginary friends with law.(the gov seems to occasionally do this to). and freeman on the land and simply freeman are two separate things; although many have failed to make the distinction. on all sides of the debate. its like saying all cars when the discussion is about fords.

and i cant speak for anyone but myself so im not sure where 'you guys' are going. but i am being quite clear i hope as to my beliefs and the beliefs of several other with whom i associate.

peace,
ninj