Windsor Star article on Tax Protestor Jack Klundert

[a***@123.com]

June 28, 2006 THE WINDSOR STAR PAGE: A3
Tax verdict 'a one shot deal'
Law prof says Revenue Canada will pursue protester despite acquittal

Dave Battagello Windsor Star

Renegade tax fighter Jack Klundert may not be a criminal in the eyes
of the court.
But tax law experts on Tuesday pointed to the $900,000 seized from
him by the federal government as reason enough not to follow his path.
"If anybody does not pay taxes and then cites this case, they will
put themselves in a great deal of jeopardy," warned University of
Windsor law professor John Weir, who specializes in teaching income tax
issues.
A Superior Court jury ruled Monday the local optometrist was not
guilty of tax evasion despite his refusal to pay nearly $350,000 in
income taxes on about $1.5 million of earnings between 1993 and 1998.
Although Klundert avoided jail time or house arrest, Revenue Canada
will remain vigilant to pursue funds and penalties they say he owes,
Weir said.
"They are going to get their money anyway on the civil (litigation)
side," he said. "Just because you get off (on criminal charges), doesn't
mean you don't owe."
He called the Klundert decision a "a one-shot jury deal" and
"anomalous result."
The Income Tax Act's Section 239, which outlines tax evasion, is
"broad and bulletproof," he said.
"There is no deficiency in the act and you won't see it amended
because of this," Weir said.
"Perhaps it's an education of the jury thing. It's very difficult to
get any jury to the correct level (of knowledge about the income Tax
Act). You also can't take the emotional aspect over paying taxes to
Revenue Canada out of it (within the jury)."
Klundert said in court that his protest has cost him $900,000 in
penalties, garnished wages, a lien on his home and seized funds.
He did not respond Tuesday to a message left at his home seeking
comment.
Barbara Gal-Jagielski, spokeswoman for the Canada Revenue Agency
(CRA), said she did not want to discuss specifics about Klundert's case
because a possible court appeal is pending. The agency has until July 26
to file an appeal.
But anyone in Canada facing federal income tax criminal charges is
not excused from paying outstanding charges, she said.
The agency first makes every attempt to resolve disputes amicably,
but eventually will move to take legal action, she said. Garnisheeing
wages, seizure of assets and putting liens on property are among actions
outlined in the agency's official collection policy.
Klundert's lawyer, Doug Christie of British Columbia, said Tuesday
the case should spur Canadians to read the income Tax Act themselves and
"talk about the implications."
Klundert wrote zero income on his tax forms because he believed the
federal government had no constitutional right to pursue him, court was
told.
"You have to declare private information on a form, and if you don't
fill it out exactly the way they want, they charge you with a crime,"
Christie said. "Is this the society we want to live in?"
Powers of the tax authorities should be questioned, said Christie,
who described his client's actions as "resistance to tyranny" and a
"fight for freedom."
Federal prosecutor Michael Gordner said Tuesday he will recommend
that the Canada Revenue Agency appeal the ruling.
He agreed with Weir that no amendments are needed to the income Tax
Act as a result of this case.
John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has seen many
challenges to Revenue Canada, but nothing "as unique" as Klundert's.
"This case goes further," he said. "The premise is a bit troubling.
Our mandate is to push for lower taxes -- that doesn't mean no taxes.
"It's the duty of Canadians to pay as little as possible within the
law. I'd remind taxpayers Mr. Klundert is out $900,000 despite the
ruling.
"He's fighting the good fight, as is his right. But it's been at a
high cost."

[Vicegerent]

This only proves that the Federal Government of Canada
is truly a vicious thief and grandiose extortion racket,
and proves nothing to those who know this, and are
willing to fight with all their power and resources to
regain and maintain their life and the unalienable
rights granted to us by our Creator God.

The 'sweat equity assets' held by the Crown owned
and created name/fiction entity(JOHN KLUNDERT)
in trust for the for the free will man commonly
called Jack of the Klundert family where stolen from
that trust by the Federal Government of Canada.

The fiction entity, JOHN KLUNDERT is a bankrupt
which only has the capacity as trustee in trust for
the free will man commonly called Jack of the
Klundert family, a party against which there is no
legislation whatsoever, no right by the government
to confiscate his property, and no basis or right by
the government to in any way disrupt or take his
life, liberty or property.

Unfortunately for Klundert that he did not follow
the basic rules of protesting the unlawful theft
called income tax, which are educate, protect
assets, take action. Any soldier knows that
one must put on one's helmet before sticking
one's head above the rim of the trench.

An easy and inexpensive to acquire Panamian
corporation and a bank account in Switzerland,
Hong Kong or Singapore in the corporate name
is a major step in protecting one's assets.

A very capable law firm in Panama which offers
Panamanian corporations (they are not
Internalional Business Corporations - IBCs)
is: http://www.offshorecenter.com

Even a joint bank account with another adult
(except spouse) and with 'AND' between
the names, and two signatures required
for withdrawal offers some protection.

A second mortgage in the name of one's
Panamanian corporation on one's real
estate holdings is also reasonably effective.
As agent, you provide an office for the
corporation in your province for the service
of legal papers. Canadian corporate
Provinces have no authority outside their
borders - all Canadian corporations are
counterfeit corporations, including the
Provinces, since the death of Queen Victoria
in 1901. That is why they are not signatories
to the UNO conventions recognizing notaries.
(Search: The Hague Conventions 1961 #12)

Vicegerent

Post by a***@123.com
June 28, 2006 THE WINDSOR STAR PAGE: A3
Tax verdict 'a one shot deal'
Law prof says Revenue Canada will pursue protester despite acquittal
Dave Battagello Windsor Star
Renegade tax fighter Jack Klundert may not be a criminal in the eyes
of the court.
But tax law experts on Tuesday pointed to the $900,000 seized from
him by the federal government as reason enough not to follow his path.
"If anybody does not pay taxes and then cites this case, they will
put themselves in a great deal of jeopardy," warned University of
Windsor law professor John Weir, who specializes in teaching income tax
issues.
A Superior Court jury ruled Monday the local optometrist was not
guilty of tax evasion despite his refusal to pay nearly $350,000 in
income taxes on about $1.5 million of earnings between 1993 and 1998.
Although Klundert avoided jail time or house arrest, Revenue Canada
will remain vigilant to pursue funds and penalties they say he owes,
Weir said.
"They are going to get their money anyway on the civil (litigation)
side," he said. "Just because you get off (on criminal charges), doesn't
mean you don't owe."
He called the Klundert decision a "a one-shot jury deal" and
"anomalous result."
The Income Tax Act's Section 239, which outlines tax evasion, is
"broad and bulletproof," he said.
"There is no deficiency in the act and you won't see it amended
because of this," Weir said.
"Perhaps it's an education of the jury thing. It's very difficult to
get any jury to the correct level (of knowledge about the income Tax
Act). You also can't take the emotional aspect over paying taxes to
Revenue Canada out of it (within the jury)."
Klundert said in court that his protest has cost him $900,000 in
penalties, garnished wages, a lien on his home and seized funds.
He did not respond Tuesday to a message left at his home seeking
comment.
Barbara Gal-Jagielski, spokeswoman for the Canada Revenue Agency
(CRA), said she did not want to discuss specifics about Klundert's case
because a possible court appeal is pending. The agency has until July 26
to file an appeal.
But anyone in Canada facing federal income tax criminal charges is
not excused from paying outstanding charges, she said.
The agency first makes every attempt to resolve disputes amicably,
but eventually will move to take legal action, she said. Garnisheeing
wages, seizure of assets and putting liens on property are among actions
outlined in the agency's official collection policy.
Klundert's lawyer, Doug Christie of British Columbia, said Tuesday
the case should spur Canadians to read the income Tax Act themselves and
"talk about the implications."
Klundert wrote zero income on his tax forms because he believed the
federal government had no constitutional right to pursue him, court was
told.
"You have to declare private information on a form, and if you don't
fill it out exactly the way they want, they charge you with a crime,"
Christie said. "Is this the society we want to live in?"
Powers of the tax authorities should be questioned, said Christie,
who described his client's actions as "resistance to tyranny" and a
"fight for freedom."
Federal prosecutor Michael Gordner said Tuesday he will recommend
that the Canada Revenue Agency appeal the ruling.
He agreed with Weir that no amendments are needed to the income Tax
Act as a result of this case.
John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has seen many
challenges to Revenue Canada, but nothing "as unique" as Klundert's.
"This case goes further," he said. "The premise is a bit troubling.
Our mandate is to push for lower taxes -- that doesn't mean no taxes.
"It's the duty of Canadians to pay as little as possible within the
law. I'd remind taxpayers Mr. Klundert is out $900,000 despite the
ruling.
"He's fighting the good fight, as is his right. But it's been at a
high cost."

[Nobody]

Post by Vicegerent
This only proves that the Federal Government of Canada
is truly a vicious thief and grandiose extortion racket

It also proves that users of YOUR method are shit out of luck. Gotta
LOVE that eh Eldon?

[Abbot]

Abbot) I never cease to be amazed at the folly of the detax cult. It is
one thing for detaxers to argue that their wacky theories are
hypothetically correct, but for them to claim that they have a
practical application in our society accounts to a fraud perpetrated on
anyone gullible enough to be hoodwinked by charlatans like Eldon and
StaR. All to often the unfortunate victims of detaxing are unable to
discern whether or not the theories feed them by phony gurus such as
StaR and Eldon Warman are valid.

But one need only look at the case in which detax arguments have been
made to see the reasoning in law for their rejection. Detaxers use
several tricks to deny that these decisions are valid and applicable.

It is a common trick of the detax pseudo-scholar to pretend that his
argument is unique to him and therefore remains unrefuted and untouched
by the courts. The fact is every argument mounted by our detax denizens
is a simple repeat of an argument already voiced in the anti-tax
subculture. Detaxers infesting this NG know this to be the case since
they have visited the web sites of these anti-taxers and shamelessly
plagiarized the materials they found there.

What the detax pseudo-scholars gathered here refuse to admit is that
since their arguments are nothing more than a rehash of often ancient
anti-tax arguments it is not difficult to find case law rejecting of
detax/anti-tax arguments made by the poor fools gullible enough to
actually argue them in court. Since the detax gurus and their followers
have never sheppardized a case, much less cracked open a law book or
visited a law library, they have no idea whether their arguments are
valid or not.

This means that despite their claims of truth seeking, the ignorance of
detax pseudo-scholars their bars them from get at that truth! When
confronted with the reasoning of the court the now over matched detax
pseudo-scholar pulls out his bag of tricks. They are:

1. Argue that the perp just didn't argue the right argument. This of
course makes little sense since the poor fool who got whacked in court
got the argument from the same website the detax pseudo-scholar
plagiarized his screed.

2. Argue minor details of the case so as to pretend that given the new
improved detax snake oil the poor fool would have beat the rap. This
semantic horseshit argument boils down to claiming that the perp would
have been successful if he had just, for example, called himself a
"free will man" instead of a "flesh and blood man", or if I he had made
his argument at his trial and not his appeal.

3. Claim all judges are the black robed thugs and corrupt agents of the
Vatican, or the New World Order. This argument denies the centuries old
tradition of judicial independence. Of course this argument is turned
on its head when the detax pseudo-scholar wants to claim that some case
he has misquoted supports him.

4. Ignore what the court said and fail to address the logic of the
decision by launching into a ad hominem attack on the that the detax
debunker. This response of course is of no use to the next poor fool
who is stupid enough to argue the detax folly in court since no judge
gives a hoot about such logical fallacies.

5. Repeat haughtily and ad nausea the detax theory adding in as many
seemingly legal notations as possible in the sure hope that fellow cult
members will be convinced that the seemingly brilliant detax guru has
surely unlocked some secret code of the law. This trick, of course
denies the simple truth that the law is certain and understandable.

----------------

But in the end we have to realize that convincing these detaxers they
are so very wrong is largely a lost cause. Their denial serves as a
barrier to the realization that they have ruined (or are about to ruin)
their families and fortunes on this folly.

With out this denial some of these boys are just Mrs. Warmans waiting
to off themselves.

The detax cult serves, not as a study group, but as a mechanism to
paper over the impact detax theory has had on the poor families and
children unfortunate enough to live with these nut cases while they
wrecked their lives.

Post by Vicegerent
This only proves that the Federal Government of Canada
is truly a vicious thief and grandiose extortion racket,
and proves nothing to those who know this, and are
willing to fight with all their power and resources to
regain and maintain their life and the unalienable
rights granted to us by our Creator God.
The 'sweat equity assets' held by the Crown owned
and created name/fiction entity(JOHN KLUNDERT)
in trust for the for the free will man commonly
called Jack of the Klundert family where stolen from
that trust by the Federal Government of Canada.
The fiction entity, JOHN KLUNDERT is a bankrupt
which only has the capacity as trustee in trust for
the free will man commonly called Jack of the
Klundert family, a party against which there is no
legislation whatsoever, no right by the government
to confiscate his property, and no basis or right by
the government to in any way disrupt or take his
life, liberty or property.
Unfortunately for Klundert that he did not follow
the basic rules of protesting the unlawful theft
called income tax, which are educate, protect
assets, take action. Any soldier knows that
one must put on one's helmet before sticking
one's head above the rim of the trench.
An easy and inexpensive to acquire Panamian
corporation and a bank account in Switzerland,
Hong Kong or Singapore in the corporate name
is a major step in protecting one's assets.
A very capable law firm in Panama which offers
Panamanian corporations (they are not
Internalional Business Corporations - IBCs)
is: http://www.offshorecenter.com
Even a joint bank account with another adult
(except spouse) and with 'AND' between
the names, and two signatures required
for withdrawal offers some protection.
A second mortgage in the name of one's
Panamanian corporation on one's real
estate holdings is also reasonably effective.
As agent, you provide an office for the
corporation in your province for the service
of legal papers. Canadian corporate
Provinces have no authority outside their
borders - all Canadian corporations are
counterfeit corporations, including the
Provinces, since the death of Queen Victoria
in 1901. That is why they are not signatories
to the UNO conventions recognizing notaries.
(Search: The Hague Conventions 1961 #12)
Vicegerent

Post by a***@123.com
June 28, 2006 THE WINDSOR STAR PAGE: A3
Tax verdict 'a one shot deal'
Law prof says Revenue Canada will pursue protester despite acquittal
Dave Battagello Windsor Star
Renegade tax fighter Jack Klundert may not be a criminal in the eyes
of the court.
But tax law experts on Tuesday pointed to the $900,000 seized from
him by the federal government as reason enough not to follow his path.
"If anybody does not pay taxes and then cites this case, they will
put themselves in a great deal of jeopardy," warned University of
Windsor law professor John Weir, who specializes in teaching income tax
issues.
A Superior Court jury ruled Monday the local optometrist was not
guilty of tax evasion despite his refusal to pay nearly $350,000 in
income taxes on about $1.5 million of earnings between 1993 and 1998.
Although Klundert avoided jail time or house arrest, Revenue Canada
will remain vigilant to pursue funds and penalties they say he owes,
Weir said.
"They are going to get their money anyway on the civil (litigation)
side," he said. "Just because you get off (on criminal charges), doesn't
mean you don't owe."
He called the Klundert decision a "a one-shot jury deal" and
"anomalous result."
The Income Tax Act's Section 239, which outlines tax evasion, is
"broad and bulletproof," he said.
"There is no deficiency in the act and you won't see it amended
because of this," Weir said.
"Perhaps it's an education of the jury thing. It's very difficult to
get any jury to the correct level (of knowledge about the income Tax
Act). You also can't take the emotional aspect over paying taxes to
Revenue Canada out of it (within the jury)."
Klundert said in court that his protest has cost him $900,000 in
penalties, garnished wages, a lien on his home and seized funds.
He did not respond Tuesday to a message left at his home seeking
comment.
Barbara Gal-Jagielski, spokeswoman for the Canada Revenue Agency
(CRA), said she did not want to discuss specifics about Klundert's case
because a possible court appeal is pending. The agency has until July 26
to file an appeal.
But anyone in Canada facing federal income tax criminal charges is
not excused from paying outstanding charges, she said.
The agency first makes every attempt to resolve disputes amicably,
but eventually will move to take legal action, she said. Garnisheeing
wages, seizure of assets and putting liens on property are among actions
outlined in the agency's official collection policy.
Klundert's lawyer, Doug Christie of British Columbia, said Tuesday
the case should spur Canadians to read the income Tax Act themselves and
"talk about the implications."
Klundert wrote zero income on his tax forms because he believed the
federal government had no constitutional right to pursue him, court was
told.
"You have to declare private information on a form, and if you don't
fill it out exactly the way they want, they charge you with a crime,"
Christie said. "Is this the society we want to live in?"
Powers of the tax authorities should be questioned, said Christie,
who described his client's actions as "resistance to tyranny" and a
"fight for freedom."
Federal prosecutor Michael Gordner said Tuesday he will recommend
that the Canada Revenue Agency appeal the ruling.
He agreed with Weir that no amendments are needed to the income Tax
Act as a result of this case.
John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has seen many
challenges to Revenue Canada, but nothing "as unique" as Klundert's.
"This case goes further," he said. "The premise is a bit troubling.
Our mandate is to push for lower taxes -- that doesn't mean no taxes.
"It's the duty of Canadians to pay as little as possible within the
law. I'd remind taxpayers Mr. Klundert is out $900,000 despite the
ruling.
"He's fighting the good fight, as is his right. But it's been at a
high cost."