🚀 go-pugleaf

What the CCRA had was called the Declaration of Taxpayer Rights but
this was changed to a document simply titled Your Rights and can be
viewed at:

http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/E/pub/xi/rc4213eq/rc4213eq.html
(in depth version of Your Rights)

http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/agency/fairness/declaration-e.html
(simplified version)

I honestly wish to God that Bagget's CCRA Bible would get some
publicity. Not only would it improve the future conduct of the CCRA
but it's also powerful enough that it might affect the waste and
mismanagment endemic to many of our federally run institutions.


shelleyvalois@myself.com (Shelley) wrote in message news:<e034254f.0208100601.7156c4ca@posting.google.com>...
> peterpaulmanningca@yahoo.com (PeterPaulManning_CA) wrote in message news:<c13bccab.0208091521.1bc9f391@posting.google.com>...
> > I read Baggett's Tax Collectors Bible. 
> > 
> > I was expecting it to be one of those detaxing crap books easily
> > debunked but it was anything but. Doesn't even mention the word detax.
> > It's just an honest ook at how the CCRA works and operates from the
> > tax collector's point of view.
> > 
> > And I can see why the Feds prevented publication of it simply because
> > Baggett tells you how to deal with the CCRA, what questions to ask,
> > what documents to see etc. etc. in order to pay the lowest tax
> > allowable by law.
> > 
> > The sense I get from the book is that the CCRA assumes that all
> > debtor's are guilty and therefore whatever tactics the CCRA takes are
> > both necessary and right because the debtor is guilty. And it turns
> > out that the taxpayer Bill of Rights is just lip service, it means
> > nothing within the department.
> > 
> > www.angelfire.com/tx5/taxbible is netscape impaired but works fine
> > with explorer.
> 
> "The sense I get from the book is that the CCRA assumes that all
> debtor's are guilty and therefore whatever tactics the CCRA takes are
> both necessary and right because the debtor is guilty. And it turns
> out that the taxpayer Bill of Rights is just lip service, it means
> nothing within the department."
> 
> That is my impression also. Whatever tactics CCRA uses, are justified,
>  ANY means, fair or foul. Whether it is sifting through garbage or
> peeking in mailboxes they pay no heed to the rights of the taxpayers.
> As the judge said, CCRA treats the Charter with "disdain".
> 
> The assumption of innocence before guilt  is supposedly the
> cornerstone of Canada's justice system.
> 
> When a cornerstone of justice is abused on a daily basis, WHERE do we
> go from here?
> 
> What recourse do we have? 
> 
> One person  seeking redress against a system such as this would be
> nought but a kamikaze pilot.  We are assured by the government that
> there are checks and balance built within the system.
> 
> Where there is remedy, there is recourse. 
> 
> Where, then, is the recourse?
>  
> I am not aware that Canada has a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. If so, 
> please refer me to where I can find it.
> 
> Shelley Valois
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca wrote in message news:<KDO49.115300$v53.5798105@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > > In can.taxes Shelley <shelleyvalois@myself.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > "It means that everyone is subject to the law; that no one, no matter
> > > > how important or powerful, is above the law - not the government; not
> > > > the Prime Minister, or any other Minister; not the Queen or the
> > > > Governor General or any Lieutenant-Governor; not the most powerful
> > > > bureaucrat; not the armed forces; not Parliament itself, or any
> > > > provincial legislature."
>  
> > > > Those are fine sounding words, my friend. Ostensibly, NO one in Canada
> > > > is above the law. What recourse then,  do Canadians have when the
> > > > government  mandates itself to be above the law? When the government
> > > > follows its own set of rules they exemplify the standard, 'do as I
> > > > say, but not as I do'.
>  
> > > > In the book, the Tax Bible (http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/taxbible),
> > > > the author, Alan Baggett, who has been employed at CCRA for 7 years
> > > > claims that the agency, willfully and with FULL knowledge, 
> > > > deliberately breeches and violates Canadians' Charter Rights on a
> > > > daily basis  with malicious intent.
> > > 
> > > When I looked at that page, I found a blank page.  I have no idea what
> > > these allegations are, but what is clear that if anyone has a claim
> > > like this, there is a method of getting redress.  Indeed, many
> > > people make applications to court claiming redress against the Crown
> > > on a daily basis.  Some are founded and get redress, others turn
> > > out to be unfounded.
> > > 
> > > > Would not the law maxim apply that if ignorance of the law  is not
> > > > excuse for me, would it not lead me to logically assume that ignorance
> > > > of the law would also be NO excuse for the government?
> > > 
> > > The maxim is one which is often misunderstood.  What it means is that
> > > in a criminal prosecution, the Crown need not prove that the accused
> > > knew the law.  It applies equally to government officials as everyone
> > > else.
> > > 
> > > > The Charter  itself does not deny the existence of other rights, such
> > > > as common law rights that existed before the Charter and,  thus, 
> > > > FIRST AND FOREMOST, the government must honor MY freedom by their law.
> > > 
> > > The Canadian Constitution sets out both the powers of government and
> > > the limits of those powers.  In a complex society such as we have, we
> > > probably are less "free" than people before Magna Carta, being subject
> > > to a large number of laws and regulations, including the requirement to
> > > pay income tax.  That does not make us less free, even if we are subject
> > > to a large number of laws.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > 
> > > Stephen Jenuth
> > > (jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)
> > > 
> > > Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
> > > 
> > > pgp/gpg public key available at http://keyserver.pgp.com