Updated: Sep 5, 2020
August 5th 2020
For Immediate Release (tags: income tax, CRA, Ledressay, Canada, Queen)
The Defendant in an ongoing argument with Canada's tax department was denied his application to have the Judge order a senior agent of the Canada Revenue Agency, Michael Ouellette, to the witness stand yesterday after Ouellette failed to adhere to the Defendant's Subpeona. Ouellette is among the senior personnel at both the Collections and Non Filer Divisions at the CRA's Southern Tax Services Office in Penticton.
Provincial Court Judge Robin Smith heard yesterday how Steven James Merrill and a friend waited outside the Canada Revenue Agency's building on Winnipeg Street for about a half-hour last Friday before Merrill intercepted a woman with an employee badge, outside on her break. Merrill stated that he asked Stacy B, and eventually her supervisor Tracy N, both CRA employees, to aid him in delivering an envelope to Ouellette. Merrill stated that Stacy told him she knew of him, and mentioned he's on the "first floor" ... and that Tracy said she knew who he was, a supervisor with his own office, and that "for sure" he wasn't there today. Stacy added that there's "300 people working here" but "everyone's at home" due to the pandemic and that there's maybe "only 20 people here today."
The Court heard how Merrill attempted to serve Ouellette personally by asking that Tracy locate a Security Guard who might "escort" him through the building and deliver the envelope to Ouellette's mailbox or under his door at least? Nope. Merrill stated that he then asked Tracy if she would deliver the envelope to Ouellette's mailbox on his behalf, and that he (Ouellette) would find it there on Monday, but she declined again. Merrill went on to say, at this point, with the two girls both standing inside the open door well, Merrill pushed his way past them and left the white envelope clearly marked with the name "Michael Ouellette" on a white table inside the building's lobby.
Merrill stated outside the court room at the Noon break that Stacy then ran to call 911, and that he left the building without incident with his friend Tony. Merrill added that the entire conversation with the two girls, and the placement of the envelope within the lobby would've been caught on CTV, and that Ouellette probably watched it on Monday. Merrill added that there's virtually no way to verify that Her Majesty's servants in Penticton are even real people as "there's no way into the building, no reception, no intercom, no security, no mailboxes."
Merrill provided to the Court a copy of the Subpeona and stated that he signed and sealed it according to Rule 10.1 and included $100 cash for travel expenses. He offered that he did his very best to make a hand-to-hand service of Ouellette at the CRA "bunker" in Penticton. Merrill also provided to the Court a copy of the form and cover letter he sent by facsimile to Ouellette last Monday, and a registered mailing receipt, evidence of his service by Canada Post, also last Monday.
Merrill argued that Ouellette's testimony was critical to his defense and called Ouellette a coward for failing to appear at the Trial after being served as best possible. Merrill said it was Ouellette who was implicated by the the Crown's only witness, Chris Pagett, during the trial's first day on July 13th, and that he must attend and testify to his actions that caused Pagett to default on the CRA's own process. Merrill reminded the Judge that when Pagette was asked on the stand about why he failed to respond to the Defendants three individual notices, all of them subsequent to Pagett's requests to file T1 income tax returns back in 2018, he testified that his supervisor had told him it was "not necessary" to draft a follow-up correspondence. And when asked who was his supervisor, Pagett responded, "Mike Ouellette."
Despite his efforts, Judge Smith declined the Defendant's bid to have the Court issue an Order to compel Ouellette's attendance and intimated that his testimony was not relevant in any case. Merrill raised his voice and asked the Judge if he was being "denied" a defense? Silence. Judge Smith then asked if Merrill if he would would like to "call any other witnesses" to which Merrill replied "Yes I call GOD." Judge Smith then asked that the Clerk call for GOD on the Court's intercom, which she did. After waiting in silence for at least a minute, Smith asked Merrill "where is GOD?" to which Merrill replied "everywhere" and behind you! The seal in the Court Room includes the words "dieu et mon droit."
Merrill has stated throughout this Trial that he secured Pagett's agreement to delay the T1 tax filings on the basis that Pagett failed to respond to his written demand for a certified true copy of his oath of office, and thereby failed to reveal his identity, and also his intent to conduct business on Her Majesty's behalf in good faith. Pagett has a "duty to speak" and committed a default upon is own commercial process, says Merrill -- "it's a business and they have to play fair and they actually state that they will play fair on their website" he added. In his closing submissions Merrill offered the CRA's own words from their Taxpayer Bill of Rights Guide and also sections from the Federal Government's Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector . Merrill also provided evidence that Canada is in fact a corporation, the income tax in Canada is voluntary, and that "taxpayers" are not people but persons, defined in the Act as a legal entity or fiction. He added that and that Canada Revenue Agency employs deceptive tactics and "word magic" to convince Canadians that they are somehow "born" taxpayers, when in fact the income tax is only binding people who agree to act in the capacity of a Person, or Taxpayer, and accept the benefits that come along with paying their taxes.
The Crown's Counsel, a masked-up Francois Lepine of Ledressay Associates, said very little the entire day, outside of parroting Section 244. of the Income Tax Act. Merrill rebutted him by stating that it's called an "Act" and not a "law" for a reason. The Act is in fact a statute, and statutes are contracts by definition.
On the Trial's first day back on July 13th, Merrill provided to the Court copies of many previous correspondences he has had with other agents and supervisors at the Canada Revenue Agency, and with MP's (Cannan) and Federal Ministers (Blackburn and Flaherty), and illustrated that in every case he has received a reply, stating he has "received a reply to every letter and an answer to every question or query made of Canada's tax bureaucrats since 2009." "The never go silent, they will not default" he says.
You can read some of the letters and correspondences here (the Blackburn exchange from 2009 is most interesting):
Interestingly, the proceedings have revealed that Mike (or Michael) Ouellette is very likely the same individual who affirmed Pagett's sworn Affidavit of Service; the document upon which Pagette signed and swore is stamped "Michael James Ouellette A Commissioner for Taking Affidavits for British Columbia." If this is the same man, why is a senior bureaucrat at the CRA affirming the Affidavits of his underlings who he is directing at the same time to serve and swear court documents? And why is he using different names?
The Judge's ruling has been scheduled for Friday afternoon at 2:00 PM. The Government's sentencing position indicates a fine for each of the four counts of failing to file a T1 Income Tax & Benefits Form, and that the Accused receive 60 days in jail.
The Defendant filed the four tax returns on behalf of the taxpayer account on January 15th 2020, many weeks before the arraignment on March 6th 2020.