🚀 go-pugleaf

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

The following speech was read to The Federal Court Of Cnada - Trial
Division on December 12, 1988. 

Combined with the affidavit, motion, article, statement of claim, adroit
use of the court�s rules and all the previous publicity, it led to an
acceptance by the court that individuals do have an unassaillable 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.

   In The Federal Court Of Canada - Trial Division

Thank you your honour. I am here under difficult and adverse
circumstances.

My motion of Dec 1st 1988 was short and simple. With due respect it
accuses all courts of being in an insurmountable conflict of interest in
the matter. 

My statement of claim will clarify that conflict your honour.

Her Majesty�s loyal counsel for the defence has filed a motion for an
order striking out my statement of claim and thereby dismissing this
action on the basis that, pursuant to Rule 419(1)(a) of the Federal
Court Rules, the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of
action.

Tha affidavit accompanying my motion for judgment voices my fears that
defence counsel may well not care if the sanctity of this court is
desecrated in an attempt to stifle the matter without further publicity.

My concern over the conflicts of interest which I most solemnly believe
attaches to Her Majesty�s government including Her Majesty�s legal
establishment in Canada including its many courts and judges led me to
specifically enter into my statement of claim at paragraph 10 stating,
and I quote:

�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 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 this 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.� end quote.

Her Majesty�s application for such an order striking out the Statement
Of Claim  pursuant to Rule 419(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules
presupposes the knowledge that the court in an application of this kind
must assume that all allegations of fact in that Statement Of Claim
would be conclusively established at trial. 

As some of the facts in the Statement Of Claim relate to actions of some
members of Her Majesty�s legal establishment having acted in a manner in
this matter to cause the proper administration of justice to be held in
contempt and disrepute; I am concerned that perhaps I should fear much
more than the defendant�s determination to keep the matter out of the
public eye.

Many of the facts in the Statement Of Claim publicize the nexus, that
discernible co-joining of political, financial and ideological interests
between those responsible for the collection of public monies, those
responsible for their expenditure and those responsible for the orderly
administration and enforcement of those laws that ensure the orderly
acquisition of tax monies.

The Statement Of Claim lays bare the painful reality that an individual
faces a tight woven knit of suppression when he attempts to declare and
act on his solidarity with the judgments of Nuremberg. Judgments  that
in the aftermath of the insanity of that World War stated that all
humans had a duty to follow the moral imperative and not their nations
laws when faced with legal compulsion to pay taxes towards or otherwise
support preparations that are not supportable in any law.

The matter before you, your honour, is not one in which Her Majesty�s
most loyal counselors are trying to secure a small sum of tax for the
benefit of the common good.

It is a thinly disguised attempt to insert into the body of Canadian
law, further rules, regulations and precedents by which Her Majesty�s
counselors and their masters hope to deter others from believing and
stating as the plaintiff believes and publicly states that they, also,
have an unassailable right and an unavoidable duty to refuse to support
such as the defendant or others similarly involved in preparations that
involve the will and the capapcity to murder hundreds of millions of
defenceless fellow human beings; plans and preparations which, by their
very existence your honour, render absolutely worthless and meaningless
all of humanity�s past achievements and present aspirations.

Counsel for the defence, your honour, failing to obtain an order under
rule 419 (1)(a) asks that the plaintiff be ordered to provide
particulars as to the basis for the appeal from his asessment of tax
your honour. The plaintiff however does not appeal from his assessment
of tax. The plaintiff�s action is an appeal from the decision of the Tax
Court of Canada dated June 8, 1988; which decision states, �It is
ordered and adjudged that the appeal with respect to the 1985 Tax Year
be and the same is hereby dismissed.� Although the plaintiff believes
that judgment to be flawed, it correctly states in part of its reasons
�The court was informed by the Appellant this morning that he is not
challenging the method by which he was assessed or the amount of the
assessment.� To which the plaintiff in this instant matter adds, so as
to help  defence counsel understand the basis of the plaintiff�s actions
and I say your honour; my notice of objection dated, September 8, 1986
on which I based the totality of my approach to his Honourable Justice
Christie�s court simply said and I repeat this part your honour, �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.
Signed, Daniel J. Lavigne, Member, Mankind.

The matter, your honour, is not one of an appeal from an assessment of
tax and I would suggest to this honourable court that Her Majesty�s
loyal counsel does know that fact. It is a matter, your honour,
regarding the right and the duty of all to refuse to support such as the
defendant whilst they continue, through use of public funds, an immoral,
insane and I would strongly state, a criminally culpable involvement in
preparations that they know involves the will and the capacity to murder
hundreds of millions of defenceless and innocent fellow human beings
simply to satisfy the demands and ego of an absolutely vile and violent
few; to wit; their masters and their kind, and with due respect, your
kind, your honour.

Counsel for the defence requests an order granting an extension of time
within which to file a defence. British common law was not simply
granted to people your honour.

It was earned and confirmed by the valiant efforts of determined men and
women throughout the ages including those confrontations which gave us
the Magna Carta. That document and the ideals it holds high demand of
all who would be willing subjects to the rule of law and those who would
have their subjects be obedient to the rule of law that their honest and
most securely held beliefs be of such a nature as to command the respect
of all fellow citizens your honour. 

To wit: The matter must be placed before a judge and jury. To do
otherwise, to allow otherwise in this age is to confirm that government,
judicial, military and police might and not human grace and dignity will
dictate the course of human events in an era frought with danger to the
very existence of mankind.

My learned friend, with years of legal training and experience is the
General Counsel for Tax Litigation, Toronto Regional offices of Her
Majesty�s Department Of Justice. A letter which I now enter as Exhibit
�B� for the plaintiff your honour from the office of my learned friend,
dated Dec 1, 1988 and I quote, �Further to my letter of November 9, 1988
and upon closer review of your Statement Of Claim . .� signed by
Patricia Lee, Counsel,  Tax Litigation, Toronto Regional Office, attests
to the time they had to formulate and file a defence your honour.

With the greatest respect due this honourable court and your honourable
self your honour, I can not believe and it should be apparent to this
honourable court and Her Majesty�s loyal counsel that no other rational
person could believe that Her Majesty�s Canadian government and its
ministers would allow Her Majesty�s judiciary to risk its �Right� to
taxes by granting me the remedies I seek your honour, AND ALSO WITH DUE
RESPECT, the same can be said of the idea that a judge could be expected
to endanger the access to funds of those who assure his pay, pensions
and promotions!!!

Still, my learned friend asks for an extension of time in which to file
a defence!! 

As if time could develop a sophistry of language justifying preparations
that mock our humanity!!!

It is my most solemn belief your honour that you are asked to extend the
defendant�s time to file a defence in order that the true intent of my
action, the danger posed to the profits of death�s wholesalers - the
arms merchants, be taken into account so that the following judgment
will assure that never again will an action based on simple honesty and
the requirements of a shared existence threaten the status quo of those
who most profit from the continuation of the arms race.

In view of the facts before you and your knowledge of the issue your
honour; your knowledge of the duties posed all humans at the Nuremberg
trials and your knowledge of such as the defendant�s public admissions
that an all-out nuclear war could destroy everything humanity has
achieved to-date within a few minutes of an accident or an act of
insanity by any of the tens of thousands of people now controlling the
nuclear weapons of the nuclear powers, in view of those facts and all
other facts before you and the knowledge you possess as all other
concerned human beings in this deadly era; it is my most solemn and
incontrovertible belief that your confirmation of Justice Christie�s
ruling in the Income Tax Court Of Canada 86-1901 (IT) will darken and
sully forever the sanctity of this court.

I ask, beg, plead and pray that you consider humanity�s dire plight and
place its most limited resource, human conscience and its guiding light,
human consciousness, above the short term interests of such as the
defendant and cause thereby, sanctity�s light to glow forever in your
court.

I ask and I beg, I pray and I plead, that you allow the appeal or in the
alternative give value to the millions of lives lost in the defence of
freedom and the rule of law by having the matter put over before a judge
and a jury of my unbiased and uncompromised peers.

However, in the full, complete, undoubted and most solemn belief that
you are, with all due respect to this most honourable court and your
most honourable self, your master�s serf in this matter; I state that
you, on behalf of your Majesty�s interests and not in the interests of
the essence of the law which I believe you are sworn to uphold and
protect, must deny my motion for judgment.

However it is also my concurrent belief that you must then grant your
Majesty�s motion to strike out my statement of claim, thereby accepting
that all allegations therein would be conclusively established and
accepted as fact at any further trial of the matter and thereby
alleviate the severe conflicts of interests posed all courts by this
matter by pushing it into the public arena.

I thank your honour and this most honourable court.

Daniel Lavigne, 11:40PM Dec. 11/1988 
- Answering A Call- To Duty
Copyright.

Caution:  The above was not the sum total of the presentation and
interaction at court. Indeed the court, informed in closing comments
that the manner in which it had conducted the matter brought the proper
administration  of justice into contempt and disrepute then fled in
red-faced and screaming anger, charged, in effect, with contempt of
court.  
 
The above �speech� was written at the height of the arms race with the
specific intent of presenting it as a slap to greed�s bastards, their
courts, their judges and laws.
 
May such bastards face your eternal wrath.

Daniel J. Lavigne
Founder, Co-ordinator
International Humanity House
-- 
SPIRIT'S MISSILES

Do they exist,
These forces on which we rely,

Those great unknowns
For which we have murdered . .
And prayed?

Do they laugh at our ways?
Or cry?

Copyright. 1989 Daniel J. Lavigne