🚀 go-pugleaf

taxfree@planeteer.com <Daniel J. Lavigne>, continuing to espouse the
need for a total and worldwide tax refusal, writes:

T2020-88 The Statement Of Claim

Combined with the affidavit, the motion, the article, the speech to the
court, adroit use of the court�s rules and all the previous publicity,
it led the court, guided by the request/direction of its masters, the
government, to an acceptance, a lawful acknowledgement, that
individuals  have an unassailable right and concurrent and unavoidable
duty to refuse to pay taxes to any society participating in plans and
preparations involving the will and the capacity to use nuclear and
other weapons of mass murder against fellow defenceless human beings.

(The court recognised that right by heeding the government�s request to
strike the following statement of claim under Rule 419(1)(a) of the
Federal Court Rules. By doing so, each and every matter presented as
fact in the statement of claim must be accepted as �Fact� at any further
hearing of the matter. Read paragraph 6 very carefully. Therein exists
the right by which all other conscientious  taxpayers can similarly
refuse to pay taxes.) (And NO! I didn�t �sneak it in� - It fulfills my
belief in, and reliance on, the rule of law.)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION

INRE THE INCOME TAX ACT

BETWEEN

DANIEL J. LAVIGNE, PLAINTIFF
AND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, DEFENDANT

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

(FILED THIS 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988)

Notice of appeal in respect of the plaintiff�s 1985 taxation year is
hereby given from the decision of the Tax Court Of Canada dated June
8th, 1988 and mailed on June 23rd, 1988.

A. Statement of facts

1.  Since 1980, the plaintiff, pursuant to his recognition of his
existence as a member of mankind has chosen to live in a manner
reconcilable with the highest aspirations of mankind as opposed to
living in silent acquiescence to the daily debasement of life as
practised and caused by those who accept, condone, legalise and promote
the �right� of differing �goverments�, �nations�, �peoples�, �societies�
and �sovereign states� to participate in and force their citizens
participations in plans and preparations that involve the will and the
capacity to murder hundreds of millions of defenceless fellow human
beings by use of nuclear and other weapons of mass murder.

2.  Since 1980, pursuant to the plaintiff�s declaration that he is a
free man with an unassailable right and concurrent and unavoidable duty
to refuse to support those fearful and cowardly societies who allow the
greed of vile and violent men to �lawfully� risk humanity�s very
existence by the threatened use of nuclear and other weapons of mass
murder, the plaintiff has refused to either file tax returns or pay
taxes to the defendant as demanded by the defendant and has ceaselessly
challenged the defendant to develop courage sufficient to charge the
plaintiff for wilfully evading the payment of taxes and have the matter
put over for a trial before a judge and jury.

3.  Since 1980,  pursuant to the plaintiff�s belief�s and more so since
1984 pursuant to the plaintiff�s delivery of the following statement to
the defendant:

Sirs and Madames,

Attached find a photo-copy of a demand to pay by your agents, Revenue
Canada.

I reject that demand. I am a free human being. I do not belong to your
kind.

I am a free man and have but one life to live. I am forced to live it
side by side with fools who have no concept of future or sense of duty
to humanity.

Annihilation of all life forms by stupid, power hungry fools such as
yourselves is agonisingly possible.

I see no prospects that you and your kind will ever address yourselves
to the present grim reality.

I ask you: 

To where should a concerned human being turn ... without being turned
upon?

To which court should he address his fears of a polluted/contaminated
future? 

..That will listen? 

.. And do something?

.. To which establishment judge should he look upon for fair dealings?
.. Yours? ... Hah!!

Should I continue? ...... Would it be of any use?

I am free. I do not belong to your kind.

You may question my stance.

You should not doubt my determination.

Signed ... Daniel J. Lavigne  /

...... The plaintiff has openly counselled others on their right and
duty to refuse to support any government/society that is so lost to
cowardice, greed and lust for power as to wilfully and willingly
participate in a conspiracy that risks humanity�s very existence. The
defendant, aware  of the plaintiff�s continuing actions in this regard
has allowed the plaintiff to continue those actions without hindrance or
interruption in order to avoid further public challenges that the
plaintiff be charged by the defendant for wilful evasion of payment of
taxes and that the matter be decided in a public trial before a judge
and jury.

4.  With the exception pursuant to the plaintiff�s challenge to Mr.
Robert Roy, Director, Taxation, Vancouver and Mr. H.R. Rogers, Deputy
Minister, National Revenue, both hirelings of the defendant, wherein the
plaintiff was informed by the individual hirelings that the plaintiff
would be charged with wilfully evading payment of income taxes and that
the defendant would most certainly risk placing the matter before a jury
and subsequent thereafter to the loud rhetoric of both hirelings
speaking for the defendant when the defendant cowed from charging the
plaintiff; the defendant has made it adequately clear to the plaintiff
that the defendant will rely on the individual exercise of power by its
legal establishment to sanction the �Legal Right� of its agent in this
matter, Revenue Canada, to use whatever methods including the use of
lethal force to collect the �Income Taxes�, the amount assessed, that
the defendant demands be paid to it by the plaintiff and thereby deter
others from believing and publicly stating as the plaintiff believes and
publicly states that they also have an unassailable right and
unavoidable duty to refuse to support the defendant or others of his
kind similarly involved in preparations to wage mass murder.

5.  The plaintiff recognises the potential for anarchy within his
decisions and actions and holds that potential result a more acceptable
risk than that posed by the actions of the defendant and his kind in
preparing to wage all out nuclear war or the greater potential for the
utter dissolution of society worldwide posed by the development of new
technology allowing the most average of adults to build a weapon the use
of which would kill hundreds of thousands.

6.  The plaintiff�s refusal to support the defendant or any other nation
who like the defendant is involved in an agreement with other nations
that involve the will and the capacity of the defendant and his kind to
murder hundreds of millions of defenceless human beings is not only
supportable in law, it is central to all laws and it is of the utmost
necessity for humanity�s continued survival that all other human beings
similarly refuse to support the defendant or his kind.

7.  Justice J.A. Twaddle is correct when, in expressing the judgment for
the majority of the Court Of Appeal Of Manitoba in the case of Re: McKay
et al and The Government of Manitoba 23 C.R.R. 8 at page twelve, �The
Citizen Pays A Tax: The State Uses It Not As The Citizens Money, But As
Part Of A General Public Fund�. From this it follows that Honourable
Justice Haddy erred in Jerilynn Prior versus Her Majesty The Queen -
Court file No.T1838-87 Trial Division - Federal Court in stating that
there is no nexus of any kind between the amount of taxes payable by the
plaintiff and the expenditures made by the defendant�s Federal
Authority, in that without receiving the funds sought from the plaintiff
and others possessing similar beliefs, the Federal Authority is forced
to reduce spending by virtue of not having that amount sought available
to spend leaving the defendant�s Federal Authority with severe choices
i.e. continue to inflame the passions of those upon whose tax dollars
they rely when spending tax dollars to train impressionable young men
and women to murder other human beings when ordered to do so in the name
of the defendant or spend those available dollars for the moral, normal
and orderly processes of society.

8.  The plaintiff did not depend or rely upon either the defendant�s
Constitution or Charter Of Rights in his appeal before the Tax Court Of
Canada (86-1901 - IT) in that he acknowledged before hand that while
those documents are said to protect the rights of citizens, they contain
very little in their respective pages that tends to guarantee the right
of an individual to act as a human being that can not be subsequently
denied by the defendant�s reliance on clauses such as �A Demonstrably
Limited Freedom In A Free And Democratic Society�.

9.  (a) Pursuant to the Rules OF The Income Tax Court Of Canada, the
Registrar of that court shall, on demand, supply the plaintiff with
blank subpoenas for the purpose of the appeal.

9.  (b) The plaintiff by registered letter, dated January 18, 1987
requested that the Registrar forward subpoenas sufficient to compel the
attendance at court of each and every member of The House Of Commons.

9.  (c) The Registrar of the court in a subsequent conversation with the
plaintiff stated that he would not supply the plaintiff with the
required subpoenas as in his opinion the plaintiff�s questioning of The
Members Of The House Of Commons would embarrass the Government Of
Canada.

10.  The matter is of such over-riding public interest that the court
should summarily reject any application by the defendant for an order
striking out the plaintiff�s Statement Of Claim as having no reasonable
cause of action  as such an order would act to have the defendant and
its legal establishment avoid dealing with the fact of their personal
and common interest and involvement in the perpetuation of the arms
race. Their seeking such an order would be the direct result of their
wanting no further publicity in the matter. This is verified by their
absolute disregard of the plaintiff�s challenge published prominently on
the Editorial Page of The Toronto Star on June 16, 1987 herein
reproduced:

�Perrin Beatty�s exposure to and dealings with the smiling manipulators
of NATO�s various military-industrial complexes confirms the credo,
�Power corrupts . . . absolute power corrupts absolutely.�

	With neither Beatty, as revenue minister, nor his successor, Elmer
MacKay having the courage to use their laws, courts and judges to
challenge my absolute refusal to pay taxes or file tax returns to a
society racing to disaster, how can Beatty now justify asking for $200
billion to further accelerate that race? How can MacKay justify attempts
to have conscientious objectors to mass murder pay for Beatty�s
enrichment of the world�s arms merchants?

 	While the majority, as lost and cowardly fools, may choose to embrace
the madness of greed, that does not terminate the right and duty of the
minority to refuse to support policies or societies that endanger
humanity�s existence.

	If Beatty, MacKay, Mulroney et al, are as courageous as they would have
all believe, they should risk placing my refusal before a jury and let a
complete and fair judicial process rule on the �right and duty� of
individuals to refuse to fund preparations that involve the denial of
our humanity, risks of our extinction as a species and the continuing
destruction of our environment.

	Other activists should balance their striving for public acceptance
against the immediacy of the danger and consider it their special duty
to participate in a similar refusal.� 

Signed: Daniel J. Lavigne, Founder / Co-ordinator
International Humanity House

11.  By notice of assessment dated September 3, 1986 for the 1985 Tax
Year the defendant assessed the plaintiff the sum of $3,397.71.

12.  By notice of appeal dated September 8, 1986 the plaintiff appealed
the assessment.

13.  By notice of confirmation dated November 7, 1986 the defendant
confirmed the assessment.

14.  The Tax Court Of Canada dismissed the plaintiff�s appeal in a
judgment dated June 8, 1988.

15.  The plaintiff in his appeal before the Tax Court Of Canada 86-1901
(IT) did, in that court, state that the court through its relationship
with the defendant was in a visible, cognizable, critical and crucial
conflict of interest with the humble suggestion that the court could not
hear the matter without giving rise to the question of bias.

16.  No written laws exist by which the plaintiff and the others
professing similar beliefs can support their insistence that their
existence, their birth as the result of the constructive and loving
joining of two human beings grace them with an eternal right and duty to
kill no other human being.

17.  The defendant publicly states that it relies on the bible; that it
is a people who wilfully who wilfully choose and embrace the guidance of
their christian heritage and the universal belief in the brotherhood of
man found in all religions.

18.  The fifth commandment of the defendant�s christian god states;
�Thou Shall Not Kill�.

B.   Statutory provisions and reasons which the plaintiff intends to
submit.

19.  The plaintiff humbly brings to the courts�s notice that the
defendant and others of its kind have failed since the dawn of time to
place into their constitutions, statutes or other legal mechanicisms and
in the case of the defendant, the defendant�s Constitution and Charter
Of Rights, any rights, laws or other provisions by which the plaintiff
and others possessing similar beliefs would have a legal right to refuse
to pay taxes to or otherwise support such as the defendant.

20.  The plaintiff relies, inter alia, on:

20.  (a) The court�s recognition and acceptance of his objectives and
the hope that the court will recognise the disservice that all courts do
to their selves and all others when they continue, on behalf of such as
the defendant and his kind through their dependence on a complex and
mixture of laws and might, to deny the right of human beings to refuse
to support preparations to commit mass murder.

20.  (b) The court�s recognition and acceptance of his most solemn
belief that Associate Chief Justice Christie erred in that he failed to
first deal properly with the question of his court being in a possible
conflict of interest before giving his decision. The result of which is
now seen by some as acceding to the defendant�s determination that no
Canadian citizen ever be granted the lawful right to refuse to support
the defendant through the withholding of taxes even though the
defendant�s actions may well demand and require such absolute cessation.

20.  (c) The court�s recognition and acceptance of his most solemn
belief that Associate Chief Justice Christie erred in continuing to hear
the matter rather than directing that it be heard before a judge and
jury or some such other arrangement when the question of who pays his
salary and the associated costs of the court arose, as a decision in
favor of the plaintiff would soon put the defendant�s ability to pay
Justice Christie and indeed all of the defendant�s legal establishment
at risk; that Associate Chief Justice Christie and his court were in a
conflict of interest.

20.  (d) The court�s recognition and acceptance of his most solemn
belief that Associate Chief Justice Christie erred in relying on the
fact that the plaintiff had raised any points of law by which he could
consider vacating the assessment in passing judgment, when Justice
Christie knew in fact that there are no provisions or laws within the
defendant�s Constitution or Charter Of Rights by which the plaintiff
could have raised an argument based on law in favour of his appeal; and
that Justice Christie knew, or should have known, that a matter such as
this would obligate him to look beyond the absence of written law
favoring the plaintiff�s appeal and consider the common law and the
essence of law which the plaintiff believes would hold as most foolish,
unlawful and reprehensible the defendant�s demand that the plaintiff pay
him monies when, after the payment of such monies into a common fund the
plaintiff has no say in how it is spent when all the while both the
defendant and the plaintiff know that the defendant will continue to
spend a portion of those public monies through his Federal Authority on
preparations involving the defendant�s will and capacity to order the
deaths of hundreds of millions of the plaintiff�s fellow defenceless
human beings and risk thereby the plaintiff�s life by retaliatory
destruction from the defendant�s �Enemy� who, in a manner similar to the
defendant, also forces his citizens to support preparations to wage mass
murder.

20.  (e) The court�s recognition and acceptance of his most solemn
belief that Associate Chief Justice Christie erred in his approach to
his decision by depending upon the various provisions of the defendant�s
Charter Of Rights which deny a citizen the right to refuse to
participate in his and others destruction, as the plaintiff did not base
his appeal on any provision of the Charter Of Rights. To clarify this
point, Justice Christie asked the plaintiff if he would say under oath
that he was responsible for the contents of a letter dated November 21,
1986 to the Registrar Of the Tax Court. However, this letter which did
contain a reference to the Charter Of Rights was solely for the purpose
of filing the appeal and was not to be presented to the court for
review. The rules for the filing of an appeal required the giving of a
reason, that letter fulfilled that function for the plaintiff and no
other. The plaintiff, in accepting responsibility for that letter did
not draw that letter before Justice Christie for the purposes of his
appeal. The plaintiff relied solely on the truths of the facts contained
in the notice of objection dated September 8, 1986 herein reproduced:

�I object to the attached assessment for the following and other reasons
of which you shall be made aware.

Your government, your society, is guilty of a wilful involvement in the
gross immorality/insanity of the nuclear arms race; the end of which
shall, in all probability, be heralded by tens of thousands of loud and
deadly explosions of Atomic, Biological, Chemical and Hydrogen bombs.

No government or society can claim the �Right� to so vilely risk the
very extinction of mankind; to so wantonly and contemptuously degrade
and destroy the very �Humanity� of our present lives. No such �Right�
exists.

My humanity, the fact and reason of my existence as a human being
prevents me and absolutely forbids me from aiding or assisting those who
so wilfully, vilely and contemptuously risk the very extinction of
mankind.

I ask and demand that this assessment be vacated; that your government
pay back to me all taxes ever collected by them from me in all and
whatever forms they employed.

I ask and hope that your government develops backbone sufficient to say
�NO!� to those who would have Canada be party to a murderous madness.

I ask and hope that you recognise your duty in this matter.

Signed Daniel J. Lavigne, Member, Mankind

.. the contents of which notice of objection Associate Chief Justice
Christie failed to address and speak to because, in the plaintiff�s most
solemn belief, of the very possible consequential damage to the
defendant and through the nexus between the defendant and the
defendant�s legal establishment, the very strong possibility of the
courts being held in contempt and disrepute upon the truths contained
therein becoming publicly known in view of the historical and
traditional rulings by courts the world over denying individuals free
choice in the matter of a public will to murder.

20.  (f) The court�s recognition and acceptance of the fact that the
Registrar Of The Tax Court Of Canada had a duty, outlined in the
Consolidated Regulations Of Canada (1978) Chapter 1513, Tax Review Board
Act, Tax Review Board Rules, Rule Twelve, to supply the plaintiff with
subpoenas for the purpose of the appeal; and this court�s further
recognition and acceptance that the Registrar�s refusal to supply those
subpoenas interfered with the plaintiff�s right to have each and every
member of the House Of Commons present in court to ask them, one by one
and to answer Yes or No to the question, �Would you participate in
launching the world into oblivion given that an impending state of war
had created in some of you an anxiety to be the first to use nuclear
weapons in the hope of limiting the destruction that you feared would
subsequently fall upon you?�; and this court�s further recognition and
acceptance that the Registrar, by his refusal, by his taking a position
to preclude the possible embarrassment of his employer, the defendant;
the Registrar Of The Tax Court Of Canada detracted from the plaintiff�s
ability to properly present his appeal and that the Registrar Of The Tax
Court Of Canada has caused the proper administration of Justice to be
held in contempt and disrepute.

20.  (g) The court�s recognition and acceptance of the plaintiff�s most
solemn reliance on this court�s awareness that humanity�s continued
existence is at great risk; that the existence of and the will to use
nuclear and other weapons of mass murder has not come about because of
the general will of humanity that we should live under such a threat but
rather because of the fear, cowardice, greed and lust for power
exercised by the defendant and his kind throughout the world; that it is
they, the defendant and his kind worldwide who have caused to be
protected by �written law� the desire of the vilest and most violent men
to have those weapons with which to conduct their policies of amassing
massive wealth and power regardless of the cost and consequence to
others; that human beings should have the protection of law when
asserting their absolute and unassailable right to refuse to support
those  who condemn all of humanity to a very probable total destruction
and a definite, continuing and debilitating despair; that a very
possible cause of our environmental drift to disaster is caused by
people worldwide having given up all hope and dealing recklessly with
new technological developments.

20.  (h) The court�s recognition that the duty of an individual to
refuse to commit murder, especially the duty to refuse to commit mass
murder on behalf of a third party is central to the rule of law; that
preparations to wage nuclear war given the defenceless state of most
cities now targeted for destruction by Atomic and Hydrogen weapons in
the event of all out war, are no less than preparations to commit mass
murder exhibiting the will and the capacity to commit mass murder; that
the plaintiff has both an unassailable right and an unavoidable duty in
law to refuse to participate in preparations to commit such an act and
the right and a duty to refuse to assist the defendant or any other of
his kind in committing or preparing to commit such an act.

21.  Justice J.A. Twaddle is correct when, in expressing the judgment
for the majority of The Court Of Appeal Of Manitoba 23 C.R.R. 8 at page
twelve, �The Citizen Pays A Tax: The State Uses It Not As The Citizens
Money, But As Part Of A General Public Fund�. While the plaintiff
believes that Justice Haddy erred in the matter of �No Nexus� in
Jerilynn Prior versus Her Majesty The Queen - file No. T1838-87 Federal
Court - Trial Division, his decision in that matter has been supported
by a superior court. The defendant�s agent for collection of income
taxes, Revenue Canada, concurs with the ruling and enjoys the decision
rendered by Justice Haddy.

    If indeed there is no nexus between the monies secured  by the
defendant�s agent for the collection of income taxes and the defendant�s
agent for the disbursement of those monies from a central fund, there
should be no reluctance whatsoever on the part of the defendant�s agent
for the collection of income taxes, Revenue Canada, to fulfil its
obligations and charge any and all who wilfully evade payment of taxes
unless there is indeed another nexus, a discernible co-joining of other
interests between those who collect public monies and those who spend
it. 

    The fact that the defendant�s agent for the collection of income
taxes, Revenue Canada, stands aghast at suggestion or challenge that it
cause the plaintiff�s wilful evasion of taxes to be heard before a jury
confirms, at least to the plaintiff,  that such a nexus, a discernible
co-joining of other interests does indeed exist between those
responsible for the collecting of income taxes and all the various other
taxes for the central fund and those who rely on that fund. This is
confirmed by the fact that the defendant�s prime minister and all other
ministers responsible for the spending of those funds on their
respective priorities are dependent upon the  monies within that central
fund and it is in their constant, mutual and individual interests to
ensure that nothing happens to severely disrupt the required flow of
monies into that fund. To affirm this one need only ask: Should anything
such as the plaintiff�s objective or something similar severely
interrupt the normal flow of tax monies from their varied sources into
the central fund, would the defendant be able, through the long term, to
bolster his central fund through national and foreign borrowings? The
answer for anyone familiar with international monetary risk avoidance is
a resounding �NO!�.

   The plaintiff strongly suggests that there can be no doubt of a nexus
as between those responsible for the collection of public monies and
those responsible for the expenditure of those same monies and reaffirms
Justice J.A. Twaddle in saying that once collected and in a public fund
a taxpayer�s tax monies can no longer be thought of as belonging to him
- they are now in the hands of those who will spend them in whatever
fashion the defendant�s parliament will allow. 

   Should some of those monies go to some project of societal
significance which the taxpayer would not otherwise support - that
should be and is acceptable to society; however, when the proposed
spending of public monies involves the funding of preparations to murder
massive numbers of human beings, and the only recourse of a
conscientious taxpayer who is also a conscientious objector to war and
preparations for war is the withholding of those tax monies, to withhold
thereby his support of those most heinous preparations evolves as an
unavoidable duty of sufficient moral standing as to warrant being
accepted as an unassailable right.

  The plaintiff most solemnly believes and states that a nexus, such as
described above, a discernible co-joining of political, financial and
ideological interests exists between all parties hereto other than the
plaintiff. Should the plaintiff succeed in encouraging vast numbers of
conscientious taxpayers to emulate his actions,  that nexus, that
co-joining of their mutual interests would be seen to extend to and
envelop not only the defendant and his many ministers such as the
ministers of Finance, Revenue, Defence, Justice and others, it would be
seen to extend to and envelop the defendant�s legal establishment
including the courts.

C.   Relief sought.

22.  The plaintiff therefore claims:

(a) That the appeal should be allowed; or

(b) That Associate Chief Justice Christie�s decision be rescinded and
the appeal be brought before a judge and jury; or

(c)  That an amended appeal, structured through constructive compromises
containing therein the several concerns of all parties hereto and
reflecting their common and highest aspirations for human society be
allowed.
.....................................
Coming next. Copies of correspondence with individuals from around the
world prior to the successful courtroom confrontation and conclusion. 

Still, we remain stuck in a quagmire of madness, of absolute insanity.
We still have some 35,000++ nuclear weapons, and people standing ready
to launch them at first opportunity. That is an absolutely stupid
scenario. And only bastards, cowards and associated  fools will accept
and support it.

Some good news. Exposure on usenet has resulted in a suprising amount of
interest. Who knows? A decision to use or dismantle may come sooner than
anticipated. Participate or not - it doesn�t matter. Others will do your
thinking for you.

To a safer, saner world. To duty.

Daniel J. Lavigne
Founder, Co-ordinator
International Humanity House
--
The Course Of Reason

Our course of reason was faulty
Then mired in the mud of the fall
Our hopes, without reason, were haughty
For surely we stood over all.

But that was not the blessing
That gift from the void to survive
But rather an understanding
To seek the �why� we�re alive.

Copyright Jan. 6, 1997 Daniel J. Lavigne