Income Tax Act of Canada by zkr12511

VIEWS: 85 PAGES: 11

More Info
									Amended pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Rules of Court


                                                                        No. L91905
                                                              New Westminster Registry

                      The Supre me Court of British Columbia

Between:
                                  Lovey Cridge
                               John Ruiz Dempsey
                       On Behalf Of The People Of “Canada”
                                                                               Plaintiffs

And:
           “HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA”
                                 and
                   “ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA”
                              and others
                                                        Defendants

                      Brought Unde r The Class Proceedings Act
                                R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 50


                                    Amended
                               Statement Of Claim
The Parties


1.     Lovey Cridge is a retired forensic accountant whose address for service is 13139
       – 107A Ave. Surrey, B.C.
2.     The Plaintiff, John Ruiz Dempsey, is a criminologist and forensic litigation
       specialist whose address for service is 14639 – 81A Avenue, Surrey, B.C.
3.     The Plaintiff, the People of “Canada”, comprise of all peoples who are legal
       residents of “Canada”, whether “Canadian” Citizens, Landed Immigrants, with
       permanent or non-permanent visas who may have been subjected to what the
       Plaintiff alleges is illegal and unlawful taxation, criminal extortion, conversion
       and misappropriation of funds, unlawful incarceration, unlawful seizur e of
       property, slavery and involuntary servitude by the Defendants.
4.     The Defendant, “HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA”
       is the purported titular head representing the bureaucracy, or hereafter, the
                                                                                           2


      “queen,” or the “crown,” representing the political and judicial systems within
      “Canada” and is named herein pursuant to the Crown Proceeding Act, R.S.B.C.
      1996, c. 89. For the purposes of this claim, the Plaintiffs stipulates that the actions
      of this Defendant is in no way sanctioned nor endorsed or assented to by our real
      Sovereign Queen, Her Majesty, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth The
      Second heir heirs and or successors who represent the real “Crown of Canada”,
      nor has it been given any real authority or powers by Her Majesty, the Sovereign
      Queen.
5.    The Defendant, Attorney General of “Canada” is the entity appointed from time
      to time to represent the above named Defendant, “HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
      IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA”.
6.    Other Defendants yet to be named appears in the style of cause as “others.” The
      names of the “other” defendants will be added by way of amendments as may be
      required and shall comprise of names of various Prime Ministers and Members of
      Parliament and Ministers of National Revenue, Cabinet Ministers, Justices of the
      Supreme Court of “Canada” and other judges of the federal and provincial
      Superior Courts, whom the Plaintiffs allege are, and/or have been at all material
      times, in material breach of trust and malfeasance in respect of certain duties
      nominally performed by such party or parties and affecting this action..
Nature Of The Case
7.    The Plaintiffs found out recently, that at material times, the Plaintiffs, Lovey
      Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey and the People of “Canada” may have been
      defrauded by the Defendants who without colour of right and without any
      authority of the real Crown, Her Majesty the Queen and Head of the
      Commonwealth, the Canadian Crown may have been robbing the People of
      “Canada” of their wealth and fruits of their labour by way of a fraudulent scheme
      of collecting taxes pursuant to a non-existent and bogus federal statute called, The
      Income Tax Act of “Canada”.
8.    At material times, the Plaintiff, and the People of “Canada” are the potential class
      members yet to be named who have been subjected to various income ta x
      collection schemes by the Defendants under false pretence, fraudulent
                                                                                        3


      misrepresentation, extortion, breach of trust, treason, enterprise corruption,
      slavery conversion, misappropriation of funds, and other crimes committed
      against the people of “Canada”.
9.    At all material times, the Plaintiffs and the People of “Canada” as the purported
      “taxpayers” were defrauded and continues to be defrauded by the defendant(s),
      and robbed of their wealth and fruits of their labour through an elaborate scheme
      of coloured, illegal and unlawful seizure of property and money through the use
      of various coercive schemes, threats of fines and incarceration using a bogus and
      non-existent tax law, and the unlawful revisions thereof namely the Income Tax
      Act as contained within the Revised Statutes of Canada. The Plaintiffs further say
      that what is collected by C.R.A. is otherwise paid voluntarily by nominal
      taxpayers under the deliberately induced mistaken belief that they have a moral
      and legal duty to do so.
Factual Background, Income Tax Act Of 1948
10.   In this Statement of Claim, all reference made regarding the Income Tax Act of
      1948 or Income Tax Act – 1948 or Income Tax Act 1948 are interchangeable and
      therefore means the same.
11.   There is no such thing as a lawful Income Tax Act in “Canada”. This so-called
      Act, is not a valid and lawful Act; this “Act” was unlawfully fabricated in
      violation of their own “Constitution Act, 1867”, formerly, the British North
      America Act, 1867, as it existed at the time of the purported enactment of the
      illegal Act.
12.   On or about the year 1948, the de facto Parliament of “Canada” introduced a Bill
      which was intended to repeal the War Income Tax of 1917. This Bill which was
      intended to become the Income Tax Act of 1948, with unlawfully created versions
      thereof incorporated within various derivatives of the Revised Statutes of Canada
      are now fraudulently being used by the Defendants to rob the Plaintiffs and all the
      people of “Canada”, was never enacted, and never had any force and effect at any
      time.
13.   The said Bill [or purported Income Tax Act] or the principle of the said bill was
      said to have been debated with the speeches recorded in the Hansard. At the
                                                                                         4


      conclusion of the process, the bill in principle" was sent to the senate for
      approval. The said bill did not get the senate’s approval; the bill was sent back to
      the House of Commons for correction but no correction was made and therefore
      the bill "died" and never became a valid or lawful Act.
14.   Further, the said Bill only went through two readings and did not pass the senate.
      Pursuant to the constitution, a Bill must go through three readings and this so-
      called Bill, supposed to be named the Income Tax Act of 1948 was never passed,
      and therefore this Act has never been a lawful Act and therefore void and of no
      force and effect.
15.   The bill as passed must be "read" three times in the Senate. The said bill was not
      passed by the Senate.
16.   Further, for a bill or Act to be lawful and valid, any bill passed by the Canadian
      Parliament and the Senate must be assented to by the representative of the real
      Crown of England – the “Royal Assent” by the Governor General. At no time had
      this purported Act been given a Royal Assent by the Governor General if at all.
      Even if then Governor General had given the Royal Assent, such an assent would
      be void and would not have any force and effect because the appointed Governor
      General had not been granted any Letters Patent by then reigning King of
      England, His Majesty, King George VI. The impugned Letters Patent was issued
      and signed by then Prime Minister William Lyons MacKenzie King and therefore
      unlawful because this Prime Minister did not have lawful authority to grant any
      Letters Patent in accordance with the laws of Great Britain or “Canada”.
17.   And further, pursuant to the Canadian law, any Act that has been given a Royal
      Assent must be published in the Canada Gazette. At no time had this purported
      Act been published in any Gazette.
18.   Notwithstanding the fact that the said Income Tax of 1948 has not been lawfully
      passed by the Parliament, nor had it been given a Royal Assent, nor been
      published in the Canada Gazette, the Defendants, took it upon themselves, to
      collect income taxes and extorted monies from the people of Canada without any
      colour of right, and without legal or juristic authority from 1948 to the present,
                                                                                       5


      and continues to collect and extort monies and properties from the people of
      Canada unlawfully.
19.   Those who resisted or refused to pay the Defendants were either arrested and
      falsely incarcerated, charged under various false criminal offences and their
      properties were unlawfully seized or confiscated contrary to the Magna Charta,
      the English Bill of Rights 1689, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
20.   These Defendants also violated their own Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 after its
      enactment as well their own Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after it
      was enacted and accepted as law that is enshrined within their own Constitution
      Act, 1982 in Canada.
21.   To further carry out their fraud and deception, these Defendants “re vised” the
      bogus Income Tax Act of 1948 (Income Tax Act – 1948, c. 52) and fraudulently
      and without colour of right, incorporated the illegal Act within the 1952 Revised
      Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C. 1952, c. 148).
22.   To further conceal their deception, the Defendants again revised the unlawful and
      counterfeit Income Tax Act (now with the reference to the year “1948” removed)
      and integrated this “new” Act with the 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada (see
      R.S.C.1970, c. 1-5).
23.   Again, to further obscure the truth and complete the “colouring” process, the 1970
      (R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-5) Revised Statutes of Canada was again revised and further
      became the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp)).
24.   In all of the above machinations, debauchery and wicked manipulations and
      fraudulent misrepresentations, these Defendants failed to fully hide the fact that
      Canada never had a valid and lawful income tax act or statute that could have
      justified the colossal crimes and unlawful acts including crimes against humanity
      contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Statute of Rome and
      other international law perpetrated by the Defendants against its own people.
NATURE OF THE CLASS ACTION
25.   This is a proposed class action brought pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act,
      R.S.B.C. 1996, c.50 on behalf of all persons within or without Canada who have
      been the subject of a colossal national tax collection scheme wherewith the people
                                                                                           6


      of Canada, inter-alia      were systematically robbed, defrauded, enslaved,
      imprisoned, arrested, fined, maliciously prosecuted, and tortured. The class is
      intended to include all persons who are “tax payers” within the meaning of the
      impugned Income Tax Act. Excluded from the proposed class are Prime Ministers
      and former Prime Ministers, active and retired members of the Parliament and the
      Senate, active and retired cabinet members, officers of Canada Collection and
      Revenue Agency and its predecessors.
26.   Although the main emphasis of the class action is to seek damages for the wrongs
      done unto a particular class whose properties have been unlawfully seized through
      unlawful seizure by way of illegal taxation; the class is also intended to include all
      persons who are now facing illegal taxation, as well as those persons who could
      possibly face similar proceedings in the future.
27.   The proposed class shall not be limited to the above criteria but shall include all
      government actions, unlawful prosecutions, false arrests and incarcerations,
      confiscation and seizures of properties, wage garnishments, all carried out and
      arising from the use of the said illegal Income Tax Act and derivatives thereof.
28.   The Plaintiffs sues on their own behalf and on behalf of the People of Canada and
      others similarly affected, as members of the proposed Class, namely, all pe rsons
      within or without Canada who have suffered loss of money and other assets and
      seizure of real and personal property, unlawful incarceration, are suffering the
      same and who will suffer as a result of having been the subject of illegal taxation
      by the defendants.
29.   The members of the proposed Class number in at least millions which represent
      the whole of the people of Canada. As a result, the Class is so numerous that
      joinder in a single action is impracticable. However, each Class member should
      be readily identifiable from information and records available to the defendants.
30.   Individual members of the proposed Class do not have a significant interest in
      individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions, and individualized
      litigation would also present the potential for varying, inconsistent, or contrary
      judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all parties to the court
                                                                                          7


      system resulting from multiple trials of the same factual issues. The cost to
      pursue individual action would effectively deny individuals access to the court.
31.   There is a well-defined list of common questions of fact and law. These common
      factual and legal questions do not vary from one Class member to another, and
      may be determined without reference to the individual c ircumstances of Class
      members. These include, but are not limited to, the issues listed below:

32.   The Income Tax Act of 1948 which became the basis of all “Income Tax Acts” has
      never been a valid or lawful statute within Canada and all further “Acts” derived
      from it by way of revisions and other machinations are void or voidable and have
      no force and effect due to illegality and for non-disclosure of material facts;

33.   The collection of money by the Defendants using non-existent statutes is void and
      is ultra vires these defendants’ constitutional powers or statutorial mandate and
      therefore void ab-initio;

34.   The defendants as “tax collectors failed to disclose the material fact that they have
      no legal mandate to collect money in the form of “taxes” and are therefore
      precluded by law from collecting any income taxes from the people of Canada
      from 1948 to the present;

35.   The defendants as “tax collectors” failed to disclose the material fact to the people
      of Canada that they are actually collecting taxes illegally and without colour of
      right from the people of Canada;

36.   The defendants as “tax collectors” failed to disclose the material fact to the people
      of Canada that they are going to be charging interest (usury) based on a non-
      existent and therefore illegal statute;

37.   The defendants as “tax collectors” failed to disclose the material fact to the people
      of Canada that they are going to be “taxed” on their income without any valid or
      legal grounds and with the use of an illegal statute;

38.   At various tax collection proceedings where the defendants seized the people’s
      properties, the defendants may have committed fraud upon the people during
      these proceedings by failing to disclose the truth, that no such lawful statute has
                                                                                          8


      ever been passed by the House of Commons or enacted by the m which made the
      underlying tax collection proceedings and the formation of various tax collection
      agencies void and unlawful from the very start;

39.   The statutes relied to by the defendants were void and was never assented to by
      Her Majesty the Queen nor by her predecessors nor by her lawful assignees.

40.   The acts perpetrated against the people by the Defendants were unconscionable;

41.   The   use   of   non-existent   or   unlawful     statutes   constitutes   fraudulent
      misrepresentation, extortion and unlawful seizure of the Canadian people’s
      properties, all of which are contained under the Criminal Code of Canada;

42.   The de facto corporate government of Canada has engaged in massive slavery and
      forced servitude and other crimes against humanity contrary to the Universal
      Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Economic,
      Social and Cultural Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political
      Rights and the Statute of Rome with the use of the said illegal and unlawful
      Income Tax Act and its derivatives and revisio ns from 1948 to the present.

43.   The tax collection proceedings carried out by the defendants were an unlawful
      abuse of process, numerous and various violations of the natural human rights of
      the inhabitants of “Canada” and constitutes theft by conversion and multiple
      forms of unlawful seizure of property;

44.   The defendants were unjustly enriched as result of the unlawful collection of
      monies and subsequent seizure of the people’s properties.


Relief Sought
45.   The Plaintiffs claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of the proposed Class,
      namely all of the inhabitants of “Canada”:
46.   An order certifying this action as a class proceeding and appointing them
      representative plaintiffs under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50;
47.   A declaration that all tax collection proceedings made by the defendants against
      the Plaintiffs, and the inhabitants of “Canada”       and the proposed Class are
                                                                                          9


      unconscionable and therefore void for illegality and therefore of no force and
      effect as against the proposed the people of Canada;
48.   A declaration that the above-named defendants have not been empowered by the
      real Queen of England therefore have no rights, titles or interests in the said
      properties they have seized or liened against as above described;
49.   A declaration that the tax collection proceedings undertaken by all the above-
      named defendants and all subsequent court-ordered sales and vesting orders be
      and are declared null and void as against the Plaintiffs, and the proposed Class;
50.   A declaration that the collection proceedings filed b y all the above- named
      defendants and all subsequent court-ordered sales and vesting orders constitutes
      unlawful seizure contrary to the Charter and Bill of Rights;
51.   A declaration that the collection proceedings filed by all the above- named
      defendants which resulted in arrests and incarceration due to “income tax evasion
      are actionable as against the Defendants;
52.   A declaration that any debts incurred against the Plaintiffs and the people of
      Canada by the defendants be and are discharged;
53.   A declaration that the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada,
      for all practical purposes, because of its unlawful and criminal activities and
      practices is in law to be treated as not one and the same “Crown”, apart from the
      real Crown of England with the defendant Crown being the head of the unlawful
      bureaucracy, did commit crimes against humanity and has committed treason
      against its own people by robbing and plundering the wealth and the fruits of their
      labour which only rightfully belonged to the Plaintiffs and the people of
      “Canada”;
54.   A declaration that the defendants’ unlawful creations, such as the Canada
      Collection and Revenue Agency, and its predecessors, its officers, are equally
      liable, both jointly and severally, along with the defendant crown with regards to
      the illegal collection and seizures of money and the unlawful means to achieve its
      purpose;
55.   A declaration that by the rogue Crown’s collections and seizures of money and/or
      properties through the use of a non-existent statute and subsequent revisions
                                                                                          10


      thereof constitutes gross violations of human rights and other crimes against
      humanity towards the people of “Canada” and that all persons involved be subject
      to independent criminal investigation;
56.   A declaration that the acts of the defendants constitutes unlawful taxation of the
      people’s natural rights to sustain their own lives and the lives of their children and
      such acts are ultra vires and not within these Defendants’ legal powers.
57.   A declaration that the acts of the defendants’ creations, namely, the corporations
      and other statutorial bodies responsible for collection of taxes, seizures and
      confiscation of property are ultra vires acts and therefore all monies collected and
      or seized or confiscated by the defendants be rendered returnable to their source
      or to their lawful heirs and successors;
58.   A declaration that all the defendants named in this action were unjustly enriched
      by and through their actions;
59.   An Order that the defendant(s), jointly or severally return to the Plaintiffs, Lovey
      Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey, and all the proposed Class, all monies or
      properties received and accepted by these defendants, the full amount of the taxes,
      plus interest by way of cash, draft, certified check or money order or other
      negotiable instrument commercially acceptable in “Canada”;
60.   An Order that the defendants, either jointly or severally, reimburse the Plaintiffs,
      Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey, and the proposed Class, the equivalent of
      the monies or properties, received and or forcefully seized by these defendants,
      the amount of the taxes collected plus interest by way of cash, draft, certified
      check or money order or other negotiable instrument commercially acceptable in
      Canada;
61.   An Order that the defendants, either jointly or severally, reimburse the Plaintiffs,
      Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey, and the proposed Class, all monies
      received by them as payment for “fees, fines, penalties” and all forms of
      “interest” and or other similar charges derived from the aforementioned taxes
      where monies were unlawfully collected and received by these defendants from
      1948 to the present;
                                                                                              11


62.      An Order that the defendants, either jointly or severally, compensate the
         Plaintiffs, Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey, and the proposed Class, for lost
         opportunities resulting from loss of use of monies/properties collected and/or
         seized.
63.      In the alternative, an Order that the defendant(s), either jointly or severally, pay to
         the Plaintiffs, Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey, and the proposed Class, the
         present value of the properties wrongfully foreclosed upon by them including all
         monies received by the defendant(s) as taxes and the interest thereof be returned
         to the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class forthwith;
64.      An Order for tracing of all monies collected by the Defendants, as fa r back as the
         records could be traced and until all the monies are accounted for by independent
         and court-appointed auditors.
65.      An Order compelling the Defendants to issue a formal public apology for their
         unconscionable acts resulting in the numerous and various mental, physical and
         material sufferings experienced by the Plaintiffs and the people of “Canada.”
66.      General damages;
67.      Punitive damages;
68.      Exemplary damages;
69.      Special damages;
70.      Costs pursuant to Section 37 of the Class Proceedings Act R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 50;
71.      Interests pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c 59;
72.      Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.


PLACE OF TRIAL: New Westminster, British Columbia.




Dated:       July 11, 2005                              ________________________
                                                                 Plaintiff

								
To top