Updated: Nov 27, 2020
You may have heard that I recently lost my court battle with the CRA, where the "judge" found that my delayed filings of four income tax returns warranted a 90-day visit to the Okanagan Correctional Centre, which is where I sit today.
What the judge failed to find in his ruling of August 7th was the Lawful Cause I provided in my evidence and my testimony.
This evidence submitted over the two-day trial at the Kelowna Law Courts supports irrefutably that a so-called "requirement" to file an income tax return, issued by a CRA bureaucrat, is in fact an OFFER to contract with a bankrupt and broken corporation known as CANADA.
The offer is extended to the "legal representative" of an entity known as a "taxpayer" under the colored law of the Income Tax Act. This offer, once accepted by the representative of the taxpayer, secures the right to certain benefits and privileges.
To this point, among my many submissions, I presented a letter delivered to me by Bob Hamilton, Commissioner of the CRA, wherein he "requests" a T1 return and intimates the filings is a necessary requirement to receive the associated "benefits." I also reminded the Court that the T1 form is entitled "Income Tax and Benefits Form" and that the CRA's own website admits that "voluntary compliance is the cornerstone of Canada's taxation system." (see CRA Tax Myth #2, The Facts, first line)
Additionally, and most importantly, I submitted into evidence copies of three written notices delivered to the CRA's lone witness, Chris Pagett, the bureaucrat who testified to serving upon me his requirement to file the four missing returns. The 3rd notice, delivered to him by fax and registered mail on February 5, 2019, clearly stated my acceptance of his offer to file the four returns upon a single condition. On the stand, and under oath, Pagett admitted to receiving my conditional acceptance of his offer, and that he understood it, and that he deliberately and intentionally failed to reply on the advice of his supervisor, a senior bureaucrat at the Penticton Tax Services Office named Mike Ouellette, a fellow who wears many hats, and seems to employ many aliases.
Pagett's failure to reply to all three of my notices and comply with the lone condition of my conditional acceptance was and is a violation of the law, and the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (Sections 5 and 6) and most importantly, his sworn Oath of Office to conduct Her Majesty's business in good faith.
Unfortunately for me, Judge Robin Smith skipped over virtually all of my testimony and every exhibit in his ruling and instead cherry-picked certain sections of it to create the false narrative that everyone in Canada is born a taxpayer and that we are all obligated to file our returns on time, and receive the State's benefits, and that anyone who dares pop their head up and ask questions of this scheme be labeled a criminal.
I understand that the local fake news media picked up on the ruling and ran scary headlines in the hope of persuading others to drop any plans they might have of clarifying the terms of Her Majesty's benefit program.
You are welcome to read for yourself the Affidavit and exhibits that verify and validate my positions and compare them to the judge's ruling in this case (#91448, Merrill v. Her Majesty).
As a bonus, pay special attention to the letters exchanged with the Minister of National Revenue and the local MP from Kelowna back in 2009.
An appeal hearing will be heard in Kelowna on February 8th 2021.
Steven James Merrill, Sui Juris