Mr. Snafu snaps back

Illustrations: Seth

Mr. Snafu’s favourite detaxers write letters that amuse, confuse and attempt to bruise. So he’s writing back, and he’s writing mad

While indulging a bad but enjoyable habit — trolling the internet — Mr. Snafu came upon a matter of interest at the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’s website. The CBSC is a sort of ombudsman that deals with media complaints. One of the whiners on the site happened to be that dreaded group that is the bane of Western civilization, that noted enemy of all that is good and holy, that Public Enemy No. 1 — Canadian detaxers. These dealers in dubious doctrines were complaining that a CTV television program about your friendly neighborhood detaxer had shown an expert who alleged that the terrorist Timothy McVeigh was an anti-tax protester. This, in the view of detaxers, implied something sinister about them, and made all detaxers look like terrorists.

Mr. Snafu expended unnecessary energy rolling his eyes at this notion. Of course, detaxers are not terrorists of the bomb-planting sort. This gives the fatuous fellows too much credit, and lends an undeserved aura of romance to their activities. That said, the detaxers are a kind of terrorist group. Ever since Mr Snafu wrote his marvelous exposé of their nefarious activities (“Detax man cometh,” CAmagazine, March 2002), the evildoers have bombarded him with dozens of madcap abusive letters, as destructive to his sanity as a rain of depleted uranium bomblets. What is truly frightening about thisaxis of evil is that Mr. Snafu has not yet been able to forma coalition of either the willing or unwilling to end this gratuitous use of weapons of Snafu destruction.

Consequently, Mr. Snafu has decided to go it alone,and expose detaxers even more by revealing the terrorist nature of the letters they have sent to him.

Dear reader, please note: While Mr. Snafu has been accused of many things, one thing he will not be accused of is putting words in someone’s mouth. To this end, he has decided to reproduce the following letters by detaxers verbatim, with all but the most incomprehensible errors of spelling, grammar and clarity intact. Far be it from Mr. Snafu to interfere with a “natural person’s” right to freedom of incorrect expression.

A CHALLENGING MESSAGE

Dear Mr. Snafu,
I am always amazed at how articles such as yours clearly omit so much fact and law as to be misleading unto itself. I notice you conveniently forgot to mention that the Court of Appeal in Manitoba upheld Mr. Gerry Hart’s returns as being lawful. I have issued this challenge before and I issue it again to you: I challenge anyone in Canada, including your CRA tax gurus, to a public debate, and you can add Prof. Hogg therein too, Canada’s pre-eminent federal paid hack lawyer.

I represented Tom Kennedy as his agent at court. The issue is the term ‘person’ which does not include, pursuant to various principles of statutory interpretation and definitions of same, a man or woman. We erroneously used the term, ‘natural person’ as coined by William Blackstone and to which Jeremy Bentham has notoriously [sic] criticized him for so doing. How can you have a natural legal fiction? If the term person included a man or woman, why is it not mentioned therein? Check the 1916 Business Profits War Tax Act and the 1917 Income War Tax Act definitions blah blah blah blah bitty blah blah blah blah blah….

[Dear reader, Mr. Snafu feels compelled to drastically edit this soporific gabblefest. If you wish to read more, please feel free to call him. This stuff runs for a frightening seven pages, and Mr. Snafu is confident that no reader would want to inflict such pain upon himself or herself.]

I approached the chief lawyer for Alta in the Firearms Challenge the very first day in court. After politely talking to me all day and answering my questions, when I pointed out to him that he was going to lose because he drafted his questions in such a manner as to ensure this verdict, his demeanour suddenly changed and he refused to talk to me the rest of the week. More significantly, he refused to even deny my allegations. Certainly one would think that he would have at least denied my allegation and shown me where I was in error, but nooooooooooo.

Further, there is no federal power to legislate in relation to matters which come within the subject of direct taxation. I have researched this for more than 10 years and have documentation never put before the courts in Canadian history. Now you know why the Feds have tried on 12 occasions to have me removed as agent. I have still never been charged with failing to file notwithstanding that I have publicly refused to file for nine years now. They have charged a legal fiction and are trying to attach me to this so far without success, and then only after my application to have them cited for contempt for lying to the courts in their harassing attempts to deny me audience in the agent capacity.

Admittedly, some people have used relatively impossible arguments at court. But they do not know how to properly put their arguments to the court — that is why they have lost, not because of the merits to their arguments but because they don’t know how to put them to the court. I do.

So take me up on my challenge or appoint anyone else you want. I’ll kick your butt in public.

By the way, McKeever and others conveniently forget that you don’t need taxes to run the country. As was put to the governor of the Bank of Canada in the 1939 Standing Committee Report on Banking and Commerce, to paraphrase, why should the government, which has the power to create the nation’s monetary supply interest and debt free, give that power away to a private banking cartel and then borrow back at interest to the point of bankruptcy that which it can create itself for nothing, save the cost of printing?

If the government issues a $1,000 bond, it was admitted that this money is created from nothing by monetizing the assets of the people, ie. [sic] the government promising to tax the hell out of all Canadians into abstract [sic] poverty to try and pay off. I bring your attention to the fact that not only is this $1,000 created from nothing, but the interest the banks are demanding is NEVER CREATED. Therefore, it is mathematically impossible to ever pay off this fraudulent debt. One cannot pay back $11 when only $10 was created.

I haven’t even got into the fraud upon the bench yet. Lawyers/liars, whom poll after poll shows that only about 10% of the people believe are trustworthy, are politically appointed to judges. One recent poll showed that not even half of the people polled, 44%, had faith in the honesty of the judiciary.

These politically appointed judges, are non elected, non accountable to no one save for their own useless, internal, self serving peer review system. Having been in court more than 200 times across Canada, in every court save for the SCC [Supreme Court of Canada], and having talked to dozens of lawyers, many of whom have quit the system because of the corruption, and further having talked to people currently working in some of the country’s largest law firms, I can attest without fear of any quality response, that the judiciary is virtually completely on the take and the judges who are not, well, we never seem to appear before them. I won’t get into the corruption in the Crown’s office at this point, save to say many of them, whom I have caught lying red handed on documents and orally to the court, should be in jail as well.

The system is corrupt, out of control and accountable to no one and all the “word magic” as Bentham refers to it, cannot hide this inescapable fact.

So go on, take me up on my challenge. Or show me how the debt is ever going to be paid off, as opposed to being paid down. Or simply shut up on matters you obviously have not fully researched.

Name Withheld

Dear Withheld:
It is a matter of great curiosity to Mr. Snafu as to how you succeeded in flying out of the cuckoo’s nest. Let us be clear on this: I will not be presenting my butt for you to kick anytime soon. My suspicion is that if there is any kicking to be done, it will be the CRA applying a big boot to your fat posterior or that of your acolytes.

It is hard to find meaning and coherence in all the verbiage above. Whenever I read that stuff I get a nuclear-sized headache. This is exactly the terrorism of which I speak. Perhaps you will find someone with nothing better to do than to engage you in a mind-numbing debate about arcane detax matters; it certainly will not be Mr. Snafu.

IS LABEL DETAXIST?

Dear Mr. Snafuul
Who decided that they had the right to label any of these people as “detaxers” anyway?

Asking Questions in Quebec

Dear Asking,
They did. Don’t tell me you want people to adopt politically correct names for these detax dunces? What are you thinking of? The taxonomically challenged? The nontaxed? When you come up with a good name don’t fail to let me know.

DETAX "FACTS"

Dear Mr. Snafu,
I have just read your article on detaxers and I can’t believe the crap your [sic] spreading about detaxers. Did you take your information directly from a pamphlet from the Revenue Canada/CCRA/CRA or whatever they are calling themselves this year?

Perhaps after visiting the CRA website and reading the Myths area on “Natural Persons,” which is really the basis of what the detaxers where [sic] after, one would think that no one regardless of name/title etc could beat the CRA in court...especially after reading about Thomas Kennedy. He did lose his court case right????

Well thats the interesting thing, a new group of detaxers has be [sic] born or should I say discovered the true way to defeat CRA.In light of Mr. Kennedy’s loss, a man named Russ Porisky went to court against CRA and stood behind the railing. He was asked to step forward and he replied “If I enter your jurisdiction, will you protect my human rights?” The judge replied, “No” and sent the case to a different court house in a different town, just a empty [sic] room with a table and some chairs. A different judge told him to come in and sit down and relax. The judge said he was sworn to uphold Russ’s human rights and that was the end of it. The judge looked at the CRA documents and dismissed CRA as having no jurisdiction over a “Natural Person” and they never launched an appeal. That was in 2000.

Perhaps sir before grouping all of us “loonies” together and putting a label on us you should get your facts straight or stop reading the CRA website.

Want to find out the real skinny on everything? Type in Russ Porisky in your Yahoo search engine and watch the results. Start reading.

Makes you wonder if all those 30,000 detaxers suddenly were shown how to defeat CRA what would happen. Perhaps our crooked government would have to stand up, be accountable, and start working for the people instead of for themselves/corporations/international banks, etc.

PS — I’ve had the CRA audit and they found nothing, (no jurisdiction)

PSS [sic] — I pay no tax now, how much do you pay?

Thanks I still have money in my pocket, do you?

Laughing all the way to the bank in the Laurentians

Dear Laughing,
No, I do not get my information from a CRA pamphlet. Unlike you and your fellow nutcases who confine their readings to the drivel put out by like-minded people, I do extensive research before I put pen to paper. I instruct my research assistants to bring me information from both sides of the issue and weigh it very carefully. Mr. Snafu is the most impartial person you will find, my tax-dodging man. When you suddenly find yourself a guest of the federal government at the Hotel Big House, be sure to remember that Mr. Snafu was so kind as to warn you by giving you the kind of impartial information you have been reading in these pages.

WHY ASK WHY?

I just got through your March ’02 bit about the “detaxers.” You are very stupid, very foolish, and an undiluted ignoramus. I couldn’t find anything in your article that explained why or how the government has the right to collect tax. YEAH, MR. SNAFU-HEAD, WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT STEAL OUR MONEY THROUGH TAX?

All the Best,
Detax Sympathizer in Saskatchewan

Dear Detax Sympathizer,
Why does the government lock up cuckoos like you? Because they can, that’s why. Taxation is as old as the hills, and various governments have levied tax to defray the costs of governing subjects or citizens, and where such taxed are lucky, providing benefits to citizens. In a democracy, taxation is used to raise revenue for programs that benefit the commonwealth. If you don’t like it, form a political party that has as its platform the abolishment of income tax . Now buzz off and leave me alone.


CRAZY OR COURAGEOUS?

Dear Mr. Snafu,
I would not right off these detaxers as being crazy, out of touch with reality loafs, who’s [sic] only goal in life is to avoid paying taxes. I see these detaxers in a much different light. I have been very interested in some of these cases and I have gone to court as a spectator to see the outcome.

I have witnessed individuals show incredible amounts of courage standing up against the government’s professional prosecutors and the full force of the Canadian government.

Detaxers may be seen a little different, and they may have caused a few government agents a few headaches, but remember it is the Tax department that is taking the detaxers to court not the other way around, and yes a few people have gone to jail, but they have gone to jail for tax evasion (filling [sic] false statements) and that is a criminal offense. Some people have been ordered to file income tax, some have been fined for not doing so, some cases have been dismissed, and some people have been left alone.

Viewer from Vancouver

Dear Viewer,
I wrote off detaxers long ago as people who inhabit the back of beyond the land of mental derangement. They say that courage is a form of madness. It requires a kind of mad and courageous person to stand up knowing that the CRA has him in its gun sights. The detaxers have that kind of mad courage. There is no doubt they believe in what they do. But so does the disheveled woman who lives out of plastic bags and rails at the people who walk by her bus shelter home.

No doubt detaxers are different from the rest of humanity. Everyone else knows it is a criminal offence to avoid paying taxes. But these fellows want to disrupt things. I say bring back corporal punishment for detaxers. Now buzz off and leave me alone.