🚀 go-pugleaf

taxfree@planeteer.com <Daniel J. Lavigne>, 
responding to enquirys regarding 
conditional decision T2020-88 of The 
Federal Court Of Canada - Trial Division, 
writes:

The key to understanding the victory is a 
thorough review of the Federal Court Rules.

Following the thread from Sept 3/96 will 
also assist you.

Combine that with my statement of claim 
as entered into the court's records and as 
addressed by the court and noted by the registrar, 
the sole person allowed to record the proceedings.

Combine that with my speech to the court which: 

(1) Stressed the implications of striking the 
claim under rule 419(1)(a); and 

(2) Attacked the court with accusations of 
bias and conflicts of interest; and

(3) Raised concerns regarding the possibility of 
lethal and murderous actions against myself by a government
determined
to bury the matter; and
 
(4) Stated in a loud and terminating charge to the 
court that its actions in the matter confirmed for 
the plaintiff the court's contempt for the "rule of 
law" and its status as a "serf" to its masters; and 

(5) That the court, by its actions and demeanor
in the matter, caused the administration of justice
to be held in the deepest contempt and disrepute.

Read the June 16/87 letter to the Toronto Star 
regarding the matter; combine all that with my 
previous accusations and challenges to the 
government, and you will understand the 
nature of the decision. 

- A  victory by which you may claim that 
your existence as a human being is of such 
significance to you that you can no longer 
pay taxes to, or otherwise support a society 
so lost to the madness of greed as to wilfully 
participate in plans and preparations involving 
the will and the capacity to use nuclear and other 
weapons of mass murder against fellow defenceless 
human beings. -

On the other hand, some solicitors, seeking 
promotions to the bench and  shocked that 
someone has dared to bare their devious 
relationships with the courts, enjoy stating 
that the matter was simply dismissed. 

They would have you believe that you must silently
acquiesce to and support societal insanity. 

But an operation of law prevents such  
opinions from carrying any legal weight. 

The court, faced with my motion for judgement 
and trying, most desperately, to avoid having to 
accept that each and every fact in my statement 
of claim would subsequently have to be admitted 
as fact at any further trial of the matter tried:

(1) To have me believe, at the public counter, 
immediately prior to the trial, that the matter 
had been lawfully dealt with in my absence the 
week previous; and 

(2) To seek, several times, after the trial was 
underway, to have me withraw my statement of claim. 

Those attempts had several goals:

(1) With the plaintiff not appearing for trial; 
the government, through its courts, judges, 
rules and �laws� would have then been able to do 
�whatever� required to so submerge the matter that 
it would never again risk the status quo; and

(2) With the statement of claim withdrawn, 
the court�s bias and conflicts of interests 
in  such matters would never again be exposed 
to public view; and 

(3) Never again would such a case be allowed 
to proceed beyond the control of those whose 
interests were so severely threatened.

The court, and all other courts, stood 
accused of deep and vile deceptions in judgments 
throughout time that granted their masters 
the �lawful right� to order the sons of fools 
to murder the sons of other fools in order that 
the greed, wealth and other interests of the
masters of such courts be protected for 
distribution to those party to such deceits 
and other manifestations of �the rule of law�.

My motion for judgement left the government 
with little choice:

(a) Answer and address each issue raised in the 
statement of claim, including the bias of its servant, 
the court, in the matter; and have every dot, comma, 
inflection, verb, subject and noun of their nonsense 
prodded, tore, ground, chewed and otherwise exposed 
to the public eye; or 

(b) Move to strike under rule 419(1)(a), in 
hope that I would then stay quiet and privately 
enjoy the benefits of never having to file tax 
returns or pay taxes for the rest of my life. 

Speaking of which some friends are concerned 
that heavy duty interest by diverse sorts is 
probably  a sign that I step carefully or 
expect an offer to buy my silence.

Due to the fact that I live by my word, should 
the government offer me a sum of U$50,000,001.00 
to shut up, stop selling my book and never raise
the matter again, I would be forced to accept. 

An undertaking to another party, who pleaded 
and implored that I cease public discussions of 
the matter lest I meet with a fatal �accident�; 
led me to pledge I would accept that amount.

Other than an agreement  meeting that commitment 
exactly, I will happily maintain my stance for 
the balance of my life. 

I don't expect to receive such an offer. Plans 
for a web page promoting the decision are now 
being developed.

Should any have ideas or comments that they 
believe should be part of that page, email me 
at my "taxfree@planeteer.com" address.

I am now including copies of the statement of claim 
and the speech to the court with each copy of my book: 
Mankind / Mancruel  ///  A Choice / A Duty
Copyright 1995 / 1996.

Daniel J. Lavigne
Founder, Co-ordinator
International Humanity House
-- 
WAVING GOODBYE

When ashed and rising, 
In light's last flashing,
Will we wonder why?

Or awed and gaped, 
Wailing at Hell's gate,
Wave God's gift goodbye?

Copyright.  Daniel J. Lavigne, "Meanderings", 1985

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet