b***@hotmail.com
2007-02-04 05:05:29 UTC
S94427
New Westminster Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Between : Jozef Rudolf Plaintiff
and John McCallum in his capacity as the Minister of National Revenue
representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Dominion of Canada
Irwin Cotler in his capacity as the Minister of Justice representing
Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Dominion of Canada
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency formerly known as Revenue Canada
Tracy Ellen Todd
Brian O'Donnell
Tony Brosseuk
Philip McCutchan
Ross G. Young in his capacity as an Agent of the Attorney General of
Canada
Ross G. Young in his private capacity
The lawfirm partnership of Hislop Colgur & Young
Linda Chadwick in her capacity as an employee of the law firm Hislop
Colgur & Young
Linda Chadwick in her private capacity
Defendants
Statement of Claim
1. Plaintiff Jozef Rudolf became a naturalized citizen of Canada on
March 29th 1976 At all times material to the torts alleged herein, he
was living in British Columbia.
2. John McCallum is the Minister of National Revenue representing Her
Majesty the Queen in right of the Dominion of Canada. In that official
capacity, he is vicariously liable for the harms suffered by the
Plaintiff which were occasioned by the wrongdoing of employees, agents
and/or servants of the Minister of National Revenue.
3. Irwin Cotler is the Minister of Justice representing Her Majesty
the Queen in right of the Dominion of Canada. In that official
capacity, he is vicariously liable for the harms suffered by the
Plaintiff which were occasioned by the wrongdoing of employees agents
and servants of the Minister of Justice.
4. The Canada Customs & Revenue Agency formerly known as Revenue
Canada, is a Crown Corporation created by federal Statute. The
Defendant Canada Customs & Revenue Agency is the branch of government
in charge of administering the collection of federal and provincial
income taxes. At all times material to the Causes of this Action, the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and its officers were acting in
behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada as they did, or
failed to do, the alleged actions, negligence or crimes at issue
herein. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is vicariously liable
for the harms suffered by the Plaintiff which were occasioned by the
wrongdoing of its employees, agents and / or servants.
5. Hislop Colgur & Young is a lawfirm doing business out of Cranbrook.
The partnership is a legal entity acting as Agent for the Attorney
General of Canada. Defendant Ross G. Young was a partner of this
lawfirm during all times material to the events at issue. The law firm
partnership of Hislop Colgur & Young is vicariously liable for the
harms suffered by the Plaintiff which were occasioned by the
wrongdoing of its partner, employee, agent and / or servant.
6. Linda Chadwick was an employee of the lawfirm Hislop Colgur & Young
during all times material to the Claims at issue.
7. Ross G. Young was the Agent for the Attorney General of Canada who
prosecuted file 22695 in the Provincial Court at Creston, the
integrity of which is at issue herein.
8. Tracy Ellen Todd is an officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. At all times material to this Claim she operated out of the
Southern Okanagan Tax Services Office in Penticton British Columbia.
9. Tony Brosseuk is an officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. At all times material to this Claim he operated out of the
Southern Okanagan Tax Services Office in Penticton British Columbia.
10. Brian O'Donnell is an officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. At all times material to this Claim he operated out of the
Southern Okanagan Tax Services Office in Penticton British Columbia.
11. Philip W. McCutchan is an officer of the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency. At all times material to this Claim he operated out of
the Southern Okanagan Tax Services Office in Penticton British
Columbia.
The Plaintiff claims as follows :
( a ) From about 1996 onward, officers and employees of Revenue
Canada, particularly members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada
co-operating with the directing mind of the Defendant Canada Customs &
Revenue Agency, carried on a program in which persons were profiled as
"tax protesters / detaxers / extreme government protesters" if they
"self-identified" by publicly voicing criticism of the income tax
system.
( b ) About 1996 the Plaintiff came to the attention of the Defendant
(then) Revenue Canada as he was seen in a group known as United
Shareholders of Canada. About 1996 the Defendant Canada Customs &
Revenue Agency and its officer framed-up the Plaintiff to be
prosecuted for failing-to-file returns of income, but apparently those
charges were not layed.
( c ) In 2000- 2001 and again in 2003- 2004, Plaintiff faced charges
of failing to comply with Demands from the Minister of National
Revenue pursuant to section 238 (1) of the federal Income Tax Act. At
all times material to the charges in both files 7725 / 22695 in
Creston Provincial Court, Defendants Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
and Tracy Todd were well aware that the Plaintiff had directed all
correspondence about income tax et cetera to his Agent, namely David
Butterfield. Defendants always had in their own files the address for
that Agent yet never contacted him. With that material at hand and
within the time-frame material to the incidents at issue, the
Defendants CCRA and Todd, Brosseuk, McCutchan and O'Donnell were
always aware that the Plaintiff continued asserting his right to see
the written law pertaining to the validity of their so-called "Form
T1", among other things.
( d ) In about 1997/ 1998 the [ then ] Ministrice de National Revenue
Elinor Caplan arranged with one, Warren Kinsella, to have a piece of
propaganda produced entitled "Nightmare in Big Sky Country" and to
have it broadcast over the Women's Television Network for no good
reason but to demonize critics of the income tax system by portraying
anyone and everyone who queried it as 'members of the Militia' and /
or 'the Patriot Movement' and/ or 'the Montana Freemen' and/or
'fascists' and / or 'neo-Nazis', and / or 'Aryan Nations'. and / or
'Christian Identity' thus somehow guilty by association with Timothy
McVeigh who was implicated in the bombing of the Arthur P. Murrah
building. At that time Warren Kinsella was one of Prime Minister
Chretien's inner counsel. Kinsell's book "Kicking Ass in Canadian
Politics" is one long boast about his role as a "Dirty Trickster" for
the Liberal Party of Canada. Most pertinent for this lawsuit is his
statement "Throughout the election I had been drafted by the Liberal
Party to appear on various television and radio political panels." The
WTN production was a platform for his political fearmongering, ie.
"they [ tax protesters ] use bombs bullets and threats to accomplish
their purpose". Plaintiff claims that the two malicious prosecutions
he suffered were consequent from a grand conspiracy - from the Office
of the Prime Minister on down - in which the powers and resources and
dignity of the Crown were mis-used for the partisan political purpose
of the Liberal Party.
( e ) From about 1998 and on, Department of Justice lawyer Paul
Pelletier was "tasked with" dealing with "tax protesters / detaxers /
extreme anti-government protesters". Speaking for the Minister of
Justice and its client the Canada Revenue Agency, he toured western
Canada giving seminars to approximately 17,000 employees and officers
of Revenue Canada. This seminar series was directly overseen by
Department of Justice Director of Federal Prosecution, Robert Prior.
The message Paul Pelletier delivered was that there was a policy
whereby those identified as "tax protesters" were to be treated
differently than ordinary taxpayers. Pelletier instructed that the
covert rules for treating "detaxers / tax protesters / extreme tax
protesters" were : first, to identify any file which showed
indications of "detax activity" and "alert security", and then "if
stalling continues - push ahead w RFI, etc + then prosecute. D/N play
games." Revenue Canada employees were effectually ordered to go after
anyone and everyone in a category defined by a perceived political
opinion. Such policy contravened the Revenue Canada policy of
"fairness" which it spends untold millions of dollars advertising.
( f ) Prior to 1998 the Taxation Operations Manuals of Revenue Canada
were hidden from the Public. In 1998, due to the efforts of the
Canadian Detax Group, the Taxation Operations Manuals were made
available in reading rooms at CRA offices. From 1998 on, the Plaintiff
had a legitimate expectation that officers and employees of the
Defendant Canada Revenue Agency would deliver the minimum standard of
their duty of care according to those express policies. More
particularly ; that, according with 9110 and 9112.1 of those T.O.Ms,
they would fully inform him about how the tax laws applied to him. But
in practice, as the Plaintiff queried officers and employees of the
Defendant CRA - especially the Defendant Tracy Ellen Todd - about how
certain aspects of the income tax law applied to him, she denied him
service. Plaintiff was denied service because he had unreasonably been
labelled a "detaxer / tax protester".
( g ) On August 25 1998 the Pacific Region Security Branch of Revenue
Canada circulated a "Security Memorandum" which stated that anyone and
everyone designated as a "detaxer / tax protester" was under criminal
investigation towards the end of charging them with harassment.
Plaintiff was a subject of that criminal investigation. As the
Defendants Canada Revenue Agency and Tracy E. Todd and others yet to
be ascertained criminally defamed him "across all government
databases" as a "detaxer / tax protester" when they were well aware
that he was not, they misled the police, contrary to section 140 of
the Criminal Code.
( h ) Since 1992 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had in place a
Memorandum of WORKING ARRANGEMENTS with Revenue Canada whereby police
powers could be applied to anyone who failed to file returns of
income. In that Memorandum non-filers are categorized as members of
"organized crime". On January 4 2000 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
issued a Criminal Intelligence Brief. Being nothing but surmise upon
surmise, this was obviously not for any authentic pursuit of organized
crime, but as propaganda in the political campaign waged by the Public
Service Alliance of Canada and CCRA upon those defined as their
political enemies. In early 2000 the Memorandum was 'leaked' to
journalists Jim Bronskill and Chris Cobb, so that it would be
published nation-wide. Plaintiff claims that the statement "Mr. Rudolf
has previously displayed tactics normally associated with tax protest
groups" on the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION form within the disclosure
packet in the 2003 / 2004 prosecution relates to the agenda to have
anyone who questioned the income tax system seen as involved in
criminal activity. Such profiling was not for any legitimate purpose
towards proper administration of the federal Income Tax Act, but was
the outworking of the PLAN FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX PROTEST ISSUES
then being prepared as a weapon for intimidating, thus suppressing,
those who criticize the income tax system.
( i ) In July of 2000, CCRA Deputy Commissioner Quiney formally
delivered to Rob Wright, then head of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, a PLAN FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX PROTEST ISSUES. In that PLAN,
the Defendants rendered to paper that they were well aware of the
difference between ordinary citizens who criticize the income tax
scheme, versus "anti-government extremists". That PLAN acknowledges
they appreciated 'the detax movement' was legitimate political
activity, yet the Defendants the Minister of National Revenue and the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency stated their intent to use the
powers and resources of their office for "countering" it.
( j ) At a point in time yet to be determined the PLAN FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF TAX PROTEST ISSUES became an official partnership
between the Department of Justice, CCRA officers and the Public
Service Alliance of Canada. In her letters of November 28 2002 and
April 1 2003 Nycole Turmel National President of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada reminded CCRA of their agreement to co-operate
against the "detax movement". Especially damning is the August 11 2003
letter from PSAC's legal counsel to Deputy Commissioner Rod Quiney
laying out their "cooperative and coordinated approach" to the De-tax
Movement. One activity of that partnership was the monitoring of
websites on the internet looking for content about the income tax
system which they deemed "offensive" or criminal in nature Speaking
for PSAC, lawyer Jacquie de Aguayo signed her name to the proposition
that they use official powers to identify individuals, then cut off
their internet service, and frame up such people for criminal
prosecution because of political opinions.
( k ) Plaintiff claims that, rather than being for the proper
administration and enforcement of the federal Income Tax Act, the PLAN
had as its predominant purpose the identification of "tax protesters /
detaxers / anti-government extremists" so they would be targeted for
retaliation as a way to suppress criticism of government policy, of
individual employees, and of the tax-gathering scheme overall. The
PLAN was calculated to use the mere threat of prosecution by Revenue
Canada as a way to drive citizens from public forums, all, in order to
chill open discussion on the topic of first and foremost, the
constitutionality of the income tax, and, second and by no means
least, corruption within the taxfarmers' operations. Plaintiff claims
that the predominant purpose of the PLAN involved mis-appropriation of
confidential information held by CRA for identifying ordinary citizens
who had legitimate grievances about how they were being mistreated by
the Defendant Canada Revenue Agency, in order to crush those
individuals. Further, that the Defendants were well aware such
political activity was illegal, yet continued because it worked well
for terrifying the populace into silent subservience. Plaintiff claims
that the use of employees of the tax branch of government to monitor
the legitimate political activity of Canadian citizens, being outside
the intent of the Income Tax Act RSC. and for a corrupt end, is
malfeasance of public office.
( l ) The best example of the motives of the partnership is at page 9
of the PLAN FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX PROTEST ISSUES where the
conspirators articulated their determination to have the federal
Income Tax Act changed so they could obtain ex parte Court Orders to
outlaw publicity of their corruption. Plaintiff claims he was one of
the targets of the conspirators' interference with his right to
freedom of expression as it touched on criticism and /or mere
questioning of the income tax.
( m ) As part of the partnership the Public Service Alliance of Canada
had with CCRA, the CCRA Employee Safety and Health handbook was
amended so that its Chapter 26 was altered to "capture" [ their term ]
"tax protest" under the heading "Abuse Threats Stalking and Assaults
Against Employees". Plaintiff claims that that was done only to vilify
anyone who voiced criticism of the operation of the income tax system,
so as to frame them up for prosecution. More particularly ; that
revision subverted the premise of equal treatment and equal protection
under the law so that anyone labelled as a "tax protester" would have
all files naming him across all government databases flagged with a
TF537 "security risk" warning. Plaintiff claims that this perverted
use of the term "threat" was designed so people such as himself -
entirely law-abiding and merely asserting their right to see the
written law - were flagged in order to use them for propaganda
purposes in the political campaign being waged against "the detax
movement". Plaintiff claims that deliberate dis-information about him,
insinuated "across all government databases", amounts to criminal
defamation.
( n ) Plaintiff claims that the PLAN fomented paranoia among staff of
Canada Revenue Agency and so poisoned the presupposition of fairness.
Further ; that the PLAN cultivated a corporate mindset whereby those
labelled "tax protesters" were put in jeopardy of government-induced
error as a way to frame them up for political show trials. Plaintiff
claims that as the Defendants neglected to differentiate between him
and others who may indeed have been "extremist tax protesters", they
were negligent. Plaintiff claims that, being caught in this dragnet
caused him to endure two selective prosecutions in which he suffered
distress, unnecessary costs, time lost from work, public humiliation
consequent directly from the Defendants' malfeasance of public office.
( o ) In April of 2001, charges of failing to comply with a Demand
from the Minister were stayed / file 7725 Creston Provincial Court.
That 'stay' by the Agent for the Attorney General of Canada came after
the Accused Rudolf told Prosecutor Ross G. Young that he was about to
apply for dismissal on the ground his right to speedy Justice was
being infringed. The fact that the Defendant CCRA publishes its Court
victories on its "trophy wall" on the internet, but does not post its
failures - using convictions for failing to file charges to vilify
"tax protesters" while suppressing news of the points "detaxers" make
in Court - evidences its political partisanship. That media campaign
was not for the edification of the Public, but in furtherance of the
partnership between CRA and PSAC to manipulate public opprobrium as a
weapon against their mutual political enemies.
( p ) In the winter of 2001 / 2002 Defendants the Minister of National
Revenue and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency contrived with one,
Jeff Silverstein, to prepare and broadcast a piece of propaganda over
the CTV television network which was for no other purpose but to
demonize people portrayed therein as "detaxers / tax protesters". Jeff
Silverstein pretended to solicit input from those involved in the Tax
Honesty Movement, but never did entertain anyone presenting the
"detax" positions. Plaintiff claims this piece of propaganda,
especially the appearance in it of Liberal Party spearchucker
extraordinaire Warren Kinsella, aka "the Prince of Darkness" proves
that the partnership between CRA and PSAC was directed from the very
highest echelons of government, ie. from the Office of the Prime
Minister. This and the WTN production exemplified what Warren Kinsella
learned from his hero, James Carville : "It's hard for somebody to hit
you when you've got your fist in their face." Plaintiff claims the
Defendants did exactly that = put the mailed fist of the Department of
Justice in his face as a way to shut him up asking questions he was
entitled to ask.
( q ) On July 13th 2003 Defendant Tracy Ellen Todd attended the
residence of the Plaintiff with Notices of Requirement to file income
tax returns, in hand. Being a long-time agent of the Canada Customs &
Revenue Agency Defendant Todd was very well aware that she ought to
have contacted one, David Butterfield, who was on file as being the
Agent for the Plaintiff for anything concerning income tax. Defendant
Todd was obliged to know that the Taxation Operations Manuals
stipulated that prosecution was the last resort. Yet, before drawing
up those Notices, Defendant Todd had not so much as contacted the
Plaintiff via his Agent to discuss the issue. Instead of following the
procedure set out in her job description - which the Taxation
Operations Manuals are - Defendant Todd evaded her duty by going
immediately to the end stage of the protocol. Defendant Todd was very
well aware that the Taxation Operations Manual for Prosecution and for
Non-Registrant /Non-Filers stipulated that demand Notices were to be
served personally. But she deposited the Demand Notices on the
windshield of a vehicle on the property, then left. In fact, those
Demand Notices were never seen by the Plaintiff.
( r ) As evidenced by her own note on the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION
form in prosecution 22695, Defendant Tracy Todd did not serve the
Notices of Ministerial Demands upon Jozef Rudolf. Thus, by swearing in
Affidavits of November 20th 2003 that she had served the Plaintiff,
Defendant Todd committed perjury seven times. On or about November
21st to December 2nd 2003, Defendant Todd then perverted Justice by
submitting that perjury to her superiors as part of the process for
obtaining their approval in the matter of the Prosecution of Jozef
Rudolf.
( s ) The Plaintiff intends to adduce via Interrogatories / Discovery
or at trial, evidence from people who should know, that Tracy E.
Todd's submitting perjury to her superiors in her malicious
prosecution of him was done intelligently, as part of the larger
agenda of the Public Service Alliance of Canada to abuse the process
of Her Majesty's Courts as one of the ways to outlaw those whom they
labelled "tax protesters".
( t ) On November 21st 2003 Tracy Todd was a Field Officer at the
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency in the Southern Interior Tax Services
Office at Penticton. In that position, co-operating with others, she
vetted proposals for prosecution under the Income Tax Act RSC. Inter
alia, her position required her to scrutinize the basic documents upon
which a prosecution of offences against the federal Income Tax Act was
founded. As she signed the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION form which
initiated the process of charges being laid against Jozef Rudolf, she
wilfully ignored the contradiction between what she had stated in her
Affidavits of personal service upon him, versus her own statement "The
Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle." in the Brief
Summary on that same form. Perfectly well aware that the essential
ground for such a prosecution had not been met, ie, Notice of the
Minister's demands, Tracy E. Todd fomented charges based on a false
premise. She initiated the prosecution knowing that it was founded in
perjury. Her action was malfeasance of public office.
( u ) On November 28th 2003 Brian O'Donnell was the Team Leader at the
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency in the Southern Interior Tax Services
Office at Penticton. In that position, co-operating with others, he
vetted proposals for prosecution under the federal Income Tax Act.
Inter alia, his office required him to scrutinize the basic documents
upon which a prosecution was founded. As he signed the APPROVAL FOR
PROSECUTION form in the matter of the prosecution of Jozef Rudolf he
failed to notice, or wilfully ignored, the contradiction between what
CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her Affidavits of personal
service upon the Accused, versus the statement "The Notices were left
on the windshield of his vehicle." in the Brief Summary on that same
form. He moved the prosecution ahead when he knew, or ought to have
known, that it was founded in perjury. So doing, he failed to perform
the minimum standard of his duty of care.
( v ) On December 1st 2003 Tony Brosseuk was the Manager at the Canada
Customs & Revenue Agency in the Southern Interior Tax Services Office
at Penticton. In that position, in co-operation with others, he vetted
proposals for prosecution under the federal Income Tax Act. Inter
alia, his position required him to scrutinize the basic documents upon
which a prosecution was founded. As he signed the APPROVAL FOR
PROSECUTION form in the matter of the prosecution of Jozef Rudolf he
failed to notice, or wilfully ignored, the contradiction between what
CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her Affidavits of personal
service upon the Accused, versus the statement "The Notices were left
on the windshield of his vehicle." in the Brief Summary on that same
form. He moved the prosecution ahead when he knew, or ought to have
known, that it was founded in perjury. So doing, he failed to perform
the minimum standard of his duty of care.
( w ) On December 2nd 2003 Philip W. McCutchan was the Director of the
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency in the Southern Interior Tax Services
Office at Penticton. In that position he was the senior officer
responsible for vetting proposals for prosecution under the federal
Income Tax Act. Inter alia, his position required him to scrutinize
the basic documents upon which a prosecution was founded. As he signed
the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION form in the matter of the prosecution of
Jozef Rudolf he failed to notice, or wilfully ignored, the
contradiction between what CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her
Affidavits of personal service upon the Accused, versus the statement
"The Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle." in the Brief
Summary on that same form. He moved the prosecution ahead when he
knew, or ought to have known, that it was founded in perjury. So
doing, he failed to perform the minimum standard of his duty of care.
( x ) That negligent performance by Defendants Brosseuk, O'Donnell and
McCutchan caused the Plaintiff to be subjected to a prosecution which
would not have gone ahead had they done their jobs properly.
Defendants Brosseuk, McCutchan and O'Donnell are liable for the
consequences of their negligence. Her Majesty the Queen in right of
Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency are vicariously
liable for the joint and several torts of negligence committed by
employees of servants and agents, namely Defendants Todd, Brosseuk,
McCutchan and O'Donnell.
( y ) In April 1999 CRA Agent Mike Leblanc had laid charges against
Jozef Rudolf pursuant to the federal Income Tax Act before a Justice
of the Peace in Penticton ; file 7725 at Creston Provincial Court.
With the material on file at hand, and being a long-time agent of the
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency, Defendant Todd was therefore well
aware in December 2003 that she could have done the same thing Mr.
Leblanc had done to initiate prosecution against Jozef Rudolf, ie. go
before a Justice of the Peace. But, instead, on or about December 9th
2003 CRA Agent Tracy E. Todd arranged with Ross G. Young to have Linda
Chadwick present herself to Justice of the Peace Glassford in
Cranbrook and lay charges against Jozef Rudolf under the federal
Income Tax Act ; file 22695 Provincial Court at Creston. Although
Defendants Tracy Todd, Ross G. Young and Linda Chadwick all knew that
Linda Chadwick was precluded from laying such an Information by
section 244 of the federal Income Tax Act they agreed one with
another, that, Linda Chadwick would mis-represent herself as a "Court
Liaison" so as to be received as the Informant. As Linda Chadwick then
did pretend to the Justice of the Peace she was someone authorized to
lay charges pursuant to the federal Income Tax Act she committed the
crime of personation. Since the conspirators were well aware Linda
Chadwick was statute-barred from doing so, Defendants Todd, Young and
Chadwick conspired to commit the crime of personation.
( z ) Tracy Todd supplied her false Affidavits to Linda Chadwick in
order that a Justice of the Peace would be misled to believe that the
essential element of certain offences against the federal Income Tax
Act ie. proper service of Notice of the demands from the Minister, had
been demonstrated. Linda Chadwick then presented to Justice of the
Peace E. A. Glassford an Information charging Jozef Rudolf with seven
counts of having committed offences against section 238 ( 1) of the
federal Income Tax Act by having failed to provide income tax returns
on Form T1 within a stipulated time. In that they agreed one with
another to do something they knew full well was illegal, Defendants
Tracy Todd, Ross G. Young and Linda Chadwick committed the crime of
conspiring to pervert Justice, contrary to sections 139 (2) and 465 of
the An Act respecting the criminal law RSC.
( aa ) On December 19th 2003 the Plaintiff received the summons to
appear in the Provincial Court at Creston. Since he had never been
served with the Demands from the Minister of National Revenue, which
were the lynchpins of the charges, the Plaintiff was shocked and
distressed. He went directly to the office of Ross G. Young in
Cranbrook and obtained the disclosure packet. He immediately read the
material in it. He immediately noticed the contradiction between the
sworn affidavits of CCRA agent Tracy E. Todd versus her note in the
Brief Summary on the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION form, ie, "The Notices
were left on the windshield of his vehicle." The Plaintiff immediately
drew this glaring contradiction to the attention of Prosecutor Young.
( bb ) On January 28th 2004 prior to going in to Court, the Plaintiff
again drew the attention of Ross G. Young to the glaring contradiction
between what CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her Affidavits of
personal service, versus the statement in her Brief Summary that "The
Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle." Contrary to his
obligation pursuant to his Barrister's Oath, contrary, as well, to his
duty as a federal Crown Counsel, Ross G. Young stood up and, without
telling the Court that he was aware the charges were founded in
perjury, arranged to have another date set on which to proceed. So
doing, Ross. G. Young perpetuated the fraud upon the Court.
( cc ) On February 25th 2004, prior to going in to Court, the
Plaintiff again drew the attention of Ross G. Young to the glaring
contradiction between what CCRA Agent Todd had stated in her
Affidavits of personal service, versus the statement in her Brief
Summary that "The Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle."
Contrary to his obligation pursuant to his Barrister's Oath, contrary,
as well, to his duty as a federal Crown Counsel, Ross G. Young stood
up and, without telling the Court that he was aware the charges were
founded in perjury, arranged to have another date set on which to
proceed. So doing, Ross. G. Young perpetuated the fraud upon the
Court.
( dd ) On April 21st 2004, prior to going in to Court, the Plaintiff
again drew the attention of Ross G. Young to the glaring contradiction
between what CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her Affidavits of
personal service, versus the statement in her Brief Summary that "The
Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle." Contrary to his
obligation pursuant to his Barrister's Oath, contrary, as well, to his
duty as a federal Crown Counsel, Ross G. Young stood up and, without
telling the Court that he was aware the charges were founded in
perjury, arranged to have another date set on which to proceed. So
doing, Ross. G. Young perpetuated the fraud upon the Court.
( ee ) Each of the instances set out in paragraphs ( bb ) ( cc )
( dd ) above, is a separate obstruction / perversion of Justice. Ross
G. Young furthered the original malicious prosecution three more
times. Plaintiff claims that each time this happened his distress at
being prosecuted on false charges increased. By failing to have the
charges stayed for four and a half months after he knew they were
bogus, and by withholding from the Court that knowledge, Defendant
Ross G. Young continued the fraud which Linda Chadwick, Tracy E. Todd
and he had perpetrated upon the Court, which is obstruction /
perversion of Justice. Plaintiff therefore seeks aggravated damages
for the mental distress intentionally inflicted and compounded.
( ff ) Plaintiff has good reason to believe that Defendant Philip W.
McCutchan was made aware by the office of Member of Parliament Jim
Abbott that the Prosecution of Jozef Rudolf was founded in perjury in
April 2004, yet did nothing to prevent further abuse of the process of
the Court. Plaintiff intends to adduce by Interrogatories / Discovery
or at trial, the precise date, and extent, to which Defendant
McCutchan was aware of the fraud upon the Court.
( gg ) One of the main things the Plaintiff kept on requesting of the
Defendants through all the correspondence, from 1996 and thereafter
was that they instruct him concerning the law pertaining to the
validity of the forms used by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency,
upon which returns of income were - ostensibly - required to be
submitted. Contrary to their express duty of care as spelled out in
their own Taxation Operations Manual, the Defendants the ( successive)
Minister of National Revenue, the Canada Customs & Revenue Agency and
Todd refused to provide anything of that nature. Time after time in
his correspondence, the Plaintiff included a copy of parts of the
advertised policy of the Defendants, to remind all-concerned of their
precise duty of care. Plaintiff claims that Taxation Operations Manual
policy 9110 and 9112.1 gave him legitimate expectation that the
Defendants owed him good and sufficient answer to his reasonable
questions arising from their demands. Defendants wilfully refused to
deliver that legal duty. On July 19th 2005 in file 23380 in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia at Vancouver, the Agent for the
Attorney General Lyndsay Smith finally admitted on the record that
there is no law compelling anyone to use so-called "Form T1" when
filing returns of income. Thus, at all times material to the incidents
out of which these Claims arise, the Defendants - all of them - knew,
or were obliged to know, that there was no Act nor Ministerial
Regulation nor Statutory Instrument compelling the Plaintiff to use
Revenue Canada's so-called "Form T1". Yet they prosecuted him for
failing to meet a standard which did not exist in law.
( hh ) As articulated by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the
1999 case of Blair Longley versus Minister of National Revenue
government officials who lie by omission commit malfeasance of public
office. Since the Defendant Minister of National Revenue and his
predecessors as well as the directing mind of the Canada Customs &
Revenue Agency, knew all along that the Plaintiff had the right to see
the written law on this point, or else to be told plainly and timely
that there was no law compelling the use of their so-called "Form T1",
yet they did the opposite : they lied to him by omission. As the
Defendant Tracy E. Todd lied by omission to the Plaintiff, she
committed malfeasance of public office. The Defendants Canada Revenue
Agency, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister for Justice,
the Agent for the Attorney General of Canada Hislop, Colgur & Young,
Ross G. Young, Tony Brosseuk, Brian O'Donnell, Philip McCutchan were
each negligent not doing their duty to prevent Todd's malfeasance of
public office harming the Plaintiff.
( ii ) In sum : from 1998 onward, the Defendants treated the Plaintiff
according to the covert policy taught to officers and employees of the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency by Robert Prior and Paul Pelletier
for dealing with individuals labelled by the Agency as "tax
protesters / detaxers / extreme tax protesters". Plaintiff claims that
because the Defendants had flagged him as a "tax protester" then
refused to answer his reasonable questions, they denied him equal
protection and equal benefit of the law based upon a perceived
political opinion, which is unreasonable discrimination. The Plaintiff
never was a "tax protester". Yet the Defendants' falsely labelled him
as such, then smeared him "across all government databases" ; then,
predicated on that smear, avoided delivering him the minimum standard
of their advertised duty of care ; thereafter, on the basis of their
own false statement and rank perjury, forced him into defending
himself in Court. Plaintiff claims that the entire episode of the
charges in prosecution file 22695 in the Provincial Court at Creston
was a calculated abuse of the process of Her Majesty's Courts for a
partisan political purpose, thus, a malicious prosecution, which is
malfeasance of public office.
Wherefore the Plaintiff claims
First compensation for money spent defending himself against the bogus
charges of 'failing to comply with a demand from the Minister of
National Revenue' in file 22695 Provincial Court at Creston ;
$ 400.
Second damages for monetary value of time lost from his work
necessitated by having to prepare to defend himself against the bogus
charges in file 22695 Provincial Court at Creston ; $ 3360.
Third damages for the sake of the Defendants defaming him as a "tax
protestor" when they knew he was not, then treating him unfairly on
the basis of that unreasonable profile ;
Fourth damages for the distress the Defendants' negligence caused him
as they pursued the bogus charges in file # 22695, especially after he
repeatedly reminded them of their duty of care ;
Fifth punitive damages for the sake of the Defendants selectively and
maliciously prosecuting the Plaintiff according to their
mischaracterization of him as a "tax protestor" ;
Sixth exemplary damages for the Defendants' studied malfeasance of
public office ;
particularly ; by perjury
by criminal defamation
by personation
by conspiracy to commit an indictable offence
by obstructing / perverting Justice
Seventh costs of this action ;
Eighth bonus of special costs for the sake of the Plaintiff pioneering
this novel lawsuit to have officials held accountable after they
refused to admit nor apologize nor remedy their egregious abuse of the
powers and dignity and resources of the Crown against a private
citizen ;
Ninth such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems
meet.
Place of trial : New Westminster British Columbia
Dated this day of October 2005 A. D.
__________________________
Plaintiff
Address for service : PO Box 63009 RPO Highgate 7155 Kingsway Burnaby
British Columbia V5E 4J6
Residential address : 5417 Elsie Holmes Wynndel British Columbia V0B
2N0
New Westminster Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Between : Jozef Rudolf Plaintiff
and John McCallum in his capacity as the Minister of National Revenue
representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Dominion of Canada
Irwin Cotler in his capacity as the Minister of Justice representing
Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Dominion of Canada
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency formerly known as Revenue Canada
Tracy Ellen Todd
Brian O'Donnell
Tony Brosseuk
Philip McCutchan
Ross G. Young in his capacity as an Agent of the Attorney General of
Canada
Ross G. Young in his private capacity
The lawfirm partnership of Hislop Colgur & Young
Linda Chadwick in her capacity as an employee of the law firm Hislop
Colgur & Young
Linda Chadwick in her private capacity
Defendants
Statement of Claim
1. Plaintiff Jozef Rudolf became a naturalized citizen of Canada on
March 29th 1976 At all times material to the torts alleged herein, he
was living in British Columbia.
2. John McCallum is the Minister of National Revenue representing Her
Majesty the Queen in right of the Dominion of Canada. In that official
capacity, he is vicariously liable for the harms suffered by the
Plaintiff which were occasioned by the wrongdoing of employees, agents
and/or servants of the Minister of National Revenue.
3. Irwin Cotler is the Minister of Justice representing Her Majesty
the Queen in right of the Dominion of Canada. In that official
capacity, he is vicariously liable for the harms suffered by the
Plaintiff which were occasioned by the wrongdoing of employees agents
and servants of the Minister of Justice.
4. The Canada Customs & Revenue Agency formerly known as Revenue
Canada, is a Crown Corporation created by federal Statute. The
Defendant Canada Customs & Revenue Agency is the branch of government
in charge of administering the collection of federal and provincial
income taxes. At all times material to the Causes of this Action, the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and its officers were acting in
behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada as they did, or
failed to do, the alleged actions, negligence or crimes at issue
herein. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is vicariously liable
for the harms suffered by the Plaintiff which were occasioned by the
wrongdoing of its employees, agents and / or servants.
5. Hislop Colgur & Young is a lawfirm doing business out of Cranbrook.
The partnership is a legal entity acting as Agent for the Attorney
General of Canada. Defendant Ross G. Young was a partner of this
lawfirm during all times material to the events at issue. The law firm
partnership of Hislop Colgur & Young is vicariously liable for the
harms suffered by the Plaintiff which were occasioned by the
wrongdoing of its partner, employee, agent and / or servant.
6. Linda Chadwick was an employee of the lawfirm Hislop Colgur & Young
during all times material to the Claims at issue.
7. Ross G. Young was the Agent for the Attorney General of Canada who
prosecuted file 22695 in the Provincial Court at Creston, the
integrity of which is at issue herein.
8. Tracy Ellen Todd is an officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. At all times material to this Claim she operated out of the
Southern Okanagan Tax Services Office in Penticton British Columbia.
9. Tony Brosseuk is an officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. At all times material to this Claim he operated out of the
Southern Okanagan Tax Services Office in Penticton British Columbia.
10. Brian O'Donnell is an officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. At all times material to this Claim he operated out of the
Southern Okanagan Tax Services Office in Penticton British Columbia.
11. Philip W. McCutchan is an officer of the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency. At all times material to this Claim he operated out of
the Southern Okanagan Tax Services Office in Penticton British
Columbia.
The Plaintiff claims as follows :
( a ) From about 1996 onward, officers and employees of Revenue
Canada, particularly members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada
co-operating with the directing mind of the Defendant Canada Customs &
Revenue Agency, carried on a program in which persons were profiled as
"tax protesters / detaxers / extreme government protesters" if they
"self-identified" by publicly voicing criticism of the income tax
system.
( b ) About 1996 the Plaintiff came to the attention of the Defendant
(then) Revenue Canada as he was seen in a group known as United
Shareholders of Canada. About 1996 the Defendant Canada Customs &
Revenue Agency and its officer framed-up the Plaintiff to be
prosecuted for failing-to-file returns of income, but apparently those
charges were not layed.
( c ) In 2000- 2001 and again in 2003- 2004, Plaintiff faced charges
of failing to comply with Demands from the Minister of National
Revenue pursuant to section 238 (1) of the federal Income Tax Act. At
all times material to the charges in both files 7725 / 22695 in
Creston Provincial Court, Defendants Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
and Tracy Todd were well aware that the Plaintiff had directed all
correspondence about income tax et cetera to his Agent, namely David
Butterfield. Defendants always had in their own files the address for
that Agent yet never contacted him. With that material at hand and
within the time-frame material to the incidents at issue, the
Defendants CCRA and Todd, Brosseuk, McCutchan and O'Donnell were
always aware that the Plaintiff continued asserting his right to see
the written law pertaining to the validity of their so-called "Form
T1", among other things.
( d ) In about 1997/ 1998 the [ then ] Ministrice de National Revenue
Elinor Caplan arranged with one, Warren Kinsella, to have a piece of
propaganda produced entitled "Nightmare in Big Sky Country" and to
have it broadcast over the Women's Television Network for no good
reason but to demonize critics of the income tax system by portraying
anyone and everyone who queried it as 'members of the Militia' and /
or 'the Patriot Movement' and/ or 'the Montana Freemen' and/or
'fascists' and / or 'neo-Nazis', and / or 'Aryan Nations'. and / or
'Christian Identity' thus somehow guilty by association with Timothy
McVeigh who was implicated in the bombing of the Arthur P. Murrah
building. At that time Warren Kinsella was one of Prime Minister
Chretien's inner counsel. Kinsell's book "Kicking Ass in Canadian
Politics" is one long boast about his role as a "Dirty Trickster" for
the Liberal Party of Canada. Most pertinent for this lawsuit is his
statement "Throughout the election I had been drafted by the Liberal
Party to appear on various television and radio political panels." The
WTN production was a platform for his political fearmongering, ie.
"they [ tax protesters ] use bombs bullets and threats to accomplish
their purpose". Plaintiff claims that the two malicious prosecutions
he suffered were consequent from a grand conspiracy - from the Office
of the Prime Minister on down - in which the powers and resources and
dignity of the Crown were mis-used for the partisan political purpose
of the Liberal Party.
( e ) From about 1998 and on, Department of Justice lawyer Paul
Pelletier was "tasked with" dealing with "tax protesters / detaxers /
extreme anti-government protesters". Speaking for the Minister of
Justice and its client the Canada Revenue Agency, he toured western
Canada giving seminars to approximately 17,000 employees and officers
of Revenue Canada. This seminar series was directly overseen by
Department of Justice Director of Federal Prosecution, Robert Prior.
The message Paul Pelletier delivered was that there was a policy
whereby those identified as "tax protesters" were to be treated
differently than ordinary taxpayers. Pelletier instructed that the
covert rules for treating "detaxers / tax protesters / extreme tax
protesters" were : first, to identify any file which showed
indications of "detax activity" and "alert security", and then "if
stalling continues - push ahead w RFI, etc + then prosecute. D/N play
games." Revenue Canada employees were effectually ordered to go after
anyone and everyone in a category defined by a perceived political
opinion. Such policy contravened the Revenue Canada policy of
"fairness" which it spends untold millions of dollars advertising.
( f ) Prior to 1998 the Taxation Operations Manuals of Revenue Canada
were hidden from the Public. In 1998, due to the efforts of the
Canadian Detax Group, the Taxation Operations Manuals were made
available in reading rooms at CRA offices. From 1998 on, the Plaintiff
had a legitimate expectation that officers and employees of the
Defendant Canada Revenue Agency would deliver the minimum standard of
their duty of care according to those express policies. More
particularly ; that, according with 9110 and 9112.1 of those T.O.Ms,
they would fully inform him about how the tax laws applied to him. But
in practice, as the Plaintiff queried officers and employees of the
Defendant CRA - especially the Defendant Tracy Ellen Todd - about how
certain aspects of the income tax law applied to him, she denied him
service. Plaintiff was denied service because he had unreasonably been
labelled a "detaxer / tax protester".
( g ) On August 25 1998 the Pacific Region Security Branch of Revenue
Canada circulated a "Security Memorandum" which stated that anyone and
everyone designated as a "detaxer / tax protester" was under criminal
investigation towards the end of charging them with harassment.
Plaintiff was a subject of that criminal investigation. As the
Defendants Canada Revenue Agency and Tracy E. Todd and others yet to
be ascertained criminally defamed him "across all government
databases" as a "detaxer / tax protester" when they were well aware
that he was not, they misled the police, contrary to section 140 of
the Criminal Code.
( h ) Since 1992 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had in place a
Memorandum of WORKING ARRANGEMENTS with Revenue Canada whereby police
powers could be applied to anyone who failed to file returns of
income. In that Memorandum non-filers are categorized as members of
"organized crime". On January 4 2000 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
issued a Criminal Intelligence Brief. Being nothing but surmise upon
surmise, this was obviously not for any authentic pursuit of organized
crime, but as propaganda in the political campaign waged by the Public
Service Alliance of Canada and CCRA upon those defined as their
political enemies. In early 2000 the Memorandum was 'leaked' to
journalists Jim Bronskill and Chris Cobb, so that it would be
published nation-wide. Plaintiff claims that the statement "Mr. Rudolf
has previously displayed tactics normally associated with tax protest
groups" on the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION form within the disclosure
packet in the 2003 / 2004 prosecution relates to the agenda to have
anyone who questioned the income tax system seen as involved in
criminal activity. Such profiling was not for any legitimate purpose
towards proper administration of the federal Income Tax Act, but was
the outworking of the PLAN FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX PROTEST ISSUES
then being prepared as a weapon for intimidating, thus suppressing,
those who criticize the income tax system.
( i ) In July of 2000, CCRA Deputy Commissioner Quiney formally
delivered to Rob Wright, then head of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, a PLAN FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX PROTEST ISSUES. In that PLAN,
the Defendants rendered to paper that they were well aware of the
difference between ordinary citizens who criticize the income tax
scheme, versus "anti-government extremists". That PLAN acknowledges
they appreciated 'the detax movement' was legitimate political
activity, yet the Defendants the Minister of National Revenue and the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency stated their intent to use the
powers and resources of their office for "countering" it.
( j ) At a point in time yet to be determined the PLAN FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF TAX PROTEST ISSUES became an official partnership
between the Department of Justice, CCRA officers and the Public
Service Alliance of Canada. In her letters of November 28 2002 and
April 1 2003 Nycole Turmel National President of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada reminded CCRA of their agreement to co-operate
against the "detax movement". Especially damning is the August 11 2003
letter from PSAC's legal counsel to Deputy Commissioner Rod Quiney
laying out their "cooperative and coordinated approach" to the De-tax
Movement. One activity of that partnership was the monitoring of
websites on the internet looking for content about the income tax
system which they deemed "offensive" or criminal in nature Speaking
for PSAC, lawyer Jacquie de Aguayo signed her name to the proposition
that they use official powers to identify individuals, then cut off
their internet service, and frame up such people for criminal
prosecution because of political opinions.
( k ) Plaintiff claims that, rather than being for the proper
administration and enforcement of the federal Income Tax Act, the PLAN
had as its predominant purpose the identification of "tax protesters /
detaxers / anti-government extremists" so they would be targeted for
retaliation as a way to suppress criticism of government policy, of
individual employees, and of the tax-gathering scheme overall. The
PLAN was calculated to use the mere threat of prosecution by Revenue
Canada as a way to drive citizens from public forums, all, in order to
chill open discussion on the topic of first and foremost, the
constitutionality of the income tax, and, second and by no means
least, corruption within the taxfarmers' operations. Plaintiff claims
that the predominant purpose of the PLAN involved mis-appropriation of
confidential information held by CRA for identifying ordinary citizens
who had legitimate grievances about how they were being mistreated by
the Defendant Canada Revenue Agency, in order to crush those
individuals. Further, that the Defendants were well aware such
political activity was illegal, yet continued because it worked well
for terrifying the populace into silent subservience. Plaintiff claims
that the use of employees of the tax branch of government to monitor
the legitimate political activity of Canadian citizens, being outside
the intent of the Income Tax Act RSC. and for a corrupt end, is
malfeasance of public office.
( l ) The best example of the motives of the partnership is at page 9
of the PLAN FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX PROTEST ISSUES where the
conspirators articulated their determination to have the federal
Income Tax Act changed so they could obtain ex parte Court Orders to
outlaw publicity of their corruption. Plaintiff claims he was one of
the targets of the conspirators' interference with his right to
freedom of expression as it touched on criticism and /or mere
questioning of the income tax.
( m ) As part of the partnership the Public Service Alliance of Canada
had with CCRA, the CCRA Employee Safety and Health handbook was
amended so that its Chapter 26 was altered to "capture" [ their term ]
"tax protest" under the heading "Abuse Threats Stalking and Assaults
Against Employees". Plaintiff claims that that was done only to vilify
anyone who voiced criticism of the operation of the income tax system,
so as to frame them up for prosecution. More particularly ; that
revision subverted the premise of equal treatment and equal protection
under the law so that anyone labelled as a "tax protester" would have
all files naming him across all government databases flagged with a
TF537 "security risk" warning. Plaintiff claims that this perverted
use of the term "threat" was designed so people such as himself -
entirely law-abiding and merely asserting their right to see the
written law - were flagged in order to use them for propaganda
purposes in the political campaign being waged against "the detax
movement". Plaintiff claims that deliberate dis-information about him,
insinuated "across all government databases", amounts to criminal
defamation.
( n ) Plaintiff claims that the PLAN fomented paranoia among staff of
Canada Revenue Agency and so poisoned the presupposition of fairness.
Further ; that the PLAN cultivated a corporate mindset whereby those
labelled "tax protesters" were put in jeopardy of government-induced
error as a way to frame them up for political show trials. Plaintiff
claims that as the Defendants neglected to differentiate between him
and others who may indeed have been "extremist tax protesters", they
were negligent. Plaintiff claims that, being caught in this dragnet
caused him to endure two selective prosecutions in which he suffered
distress, unnecessary costs, time lost from work, public humiliation
consequent directly from the Defendants' malfeasance of public office.
( o ) In April of 2001, charges of failing to comply with a Demand
from the Minister were stayed / file 7725 Creston Provincial Court.
That 'stay' by the Agent for the Attorney General of Canada came after
the Accused Rudolf told Prosecutor Ross G. Young that he was about to
apply for dismissal on the ground his right to speedy Justice was
being infringed. The fact that the Defendant CCRA publishes its Court
victories on its "trophy wall" on the internet, but does not post its
failures - using convictions for failing to file charges to vilify
"tax protesters" while suppressing news of the points "detaxers" make
in Court - evidences its political partisanship. That media campaign
was not for the edification of the Public, but in furtherance of the
partnership between CRA and PSAC to manipulate public opprobrium as a
weapon against their mutual political enemies.
( p ) In the winter of 2001 / 2002 Defendants the Minister of National
Revenue and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency contrived with one,
Jeff Silverstein, to prepare and broadcast a piece of propaganda over
the CTV television network which was for no other purpose but to
demonize people portrayed therein as "detaxers / tax protesters". Jeff
Silverstein pretended to solicit input from those involved in the Tax
Honesty Movement, but never did entertain anyone presenting the
"detax" positions. Plaintiff claims this piece of propaganda,
especially the appearance in it of Liberal Party spearchucker
extraordinaire Warren Kinsella, aka "the Prince of Darkness" proves
that the partnership between CRA and PSAC was directed from the very
highest echelons of government, ie. from the Office of the Prime
Minister. This and the WTN production exemplified what Warren Kinsella
learned from his hero, James Carville : "It's hard for somebody to hit
you when you've got your fist in their face." Plaintiff claims the
Defendants did exactly that = put the mailed fist of the Department of
Justice in his face as a way to shut him up asking questions he was
entitled to ask.
( q ) On July 13th 2003 Defendant Tracy Ellen Todd attended the
residence of the Plaintiff with Notices of Requirement to file income
tax returns, in hand. Being a long-time agent of the Canada Customs &
Revenue Agency Defendant Todd was very well aware that she ought to
have contacted one, David Butterfield, who was on file as being the
Agent for the Plaintiff for anything concerning income tax. Defendant
Todd was obliged to know that the Taxation Operations Manuals
stipulated that prosecution was the last resort. Yet, before drawing
up those Notices, Defendant Todd had not so much as contacted the
Plaintiff via his Agent to discuss the issue. Instead of following the
procedure set out in her job description - which the Taxation
Operations Manuals are - Defendant Todd evaded her duty by going
immediately to the end stage of the protocol. Defendant Todd was very
well aware that the Taxation Operations Manual for Prosecution and for
Non-Registrant /Non-Filers stipulated that demand Notices were to be
served personally. But she deposited the Demand Notices on the
windshield of a vehicle on the property, then left. In fact, those
Demand Notices were never seen by the Plaintiff.
( r ) As evidenced by her own note on the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION
form in prosecution 22695, Defendant Tracy Todd did not serve the
Notices of Ministerial Demands upon Jozef Rudolf. Thus, by swearing in
Affidavits of November 20th 2003 that she had served the Plaintiff,
Defendant Todd committed perjury seven times. On or about November
21st to December 2nd 2003, Defendant Todd then perverted Justice by
submitting that perjury to her superiors as part of the process for
obtaining their approval in the matter of the Prosecution of Jozef
Rudolf.
( s ) The Plaintiff intends to adduce via Interrogatories / Discovery
or at trial, evidence from people who should know, that Tracy E.
Todd's submitting perjury to her superiors in her malicious
prosecution of him was done intelligently, as part of the larger
agenda of the Public Service Alliance of Canada to abuse the process
of Her Majesty's Courts as one of the ways to outlaw those whom they
labelled "tax protesters".
( t ) On November 21st 2003 Tracy Todd was a Field Officer at the
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency in the Southern Interior Tax Services
Office at Penticton. In that position, co-operating with others, she
vetted proposals for prosecution under the Income Tax Act RSC. Inter
alia, her position required her to scrutinize the basic documents upon
which a prosecution of offences against the federal Income Tax Act was
founded. As she signed the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION form which
initiated the process of charges being laid against Jozef Rudolf, she
wilfully ignored the contradiction between what she had stated in her
Affidavits of personal service upon him, versus her own statement "The
Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle." in the Brief
Summary on that same form. Perfectly well aware that the essential
ground for such a prosecution had not been met, ie, Notice of the
Minister's demands, Tracy E. Todd fomented charges based on a false
premise. She initiated the prosecution knowing that it was founded in
perjury. Her action was malfeasance of public office.
( u ) On November 28th 2003 Brian O'Donnell was the Team Leader at the
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency in the Southern Interior Tax Services
Office at Penticton. In that position, co-operating with others, he
vetted proposals for prosecution under the federal Income Tax Act.
Inter alia, his office required him to scrutinize the basic documents
upon which a prosecution was founded. As he signed the APPROVAL FOR
PROSECUTION form in the matter of the prosecution of Jozef Rudolf he
failed to notice, or wilfully ignored, the contradiction between what
CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her Affidavits of personal
service upon the Accused, versus the statement "The Notices were left
on the windshield of his vehicle." in the Brief Summary on that same
form. He moved the prosecution ahead when he knew, or ought to have
known, that it was founded in perjury. So doing, he failed to perform
the minimum standard of his duty of care.
( v ) On December 1st 2003 Tony Brosseuk was the Manager at the Canada
Customs & Revenue Agency in the Southern Interior Tax Services Office
at Penticton. In that position, in co-operation with others, he vetted
proposals for prosecution under the federal Income Tax Act. Inter
alia, his position required him to scrutinize the basic documents upon
which a prosecution was founded. As he signed the APPROVAL FOR
PROSECUTION form in the matter of the prosecution of Jozef Rudolf he
failed to notice, or wilfully ignored, the contradiction between what
CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her Affidavits of personal
service upon the Accused, versus the statement "The Notices were left
on the windshield of his vehicle." in the Brief Summary on that same
form. He moved the prosecution ahead when he knew, or ought to have
known, that it was founded in perjury. So doing, he failed to perform
the minimum standard of his duty of care.
( w ) On December 2nd 2003 Philip W. McCutchan was the Director of the
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency in the Southern Interior Tax Services
Office at Penticton. In that position he was the senior officer
responsible for vetting proposals for prosecution under the federal
Income Tax Act. Inter alia, his position required him to scrutinize
the basic documents upon which a prosecution was founded. As he signed
the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION form in the matter of the prosecution of
Jozef Rudolf he failed to notice, or wilfully ignored, the
contradiction between what CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her
Affidavits of personal service upon the Accused, versus the statement
"The Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle." in the Brief
Summary on that same form. He moved the prosecution ahead when he
knew, or ought to have known, that it was founded in perjury. So
doing, he failed to perform the minimum standard of his duty of care.
( x ) That negligent performance by Defendants Brosseuk, O'Donnell and
McCutchan caused the Plaintiff to be subjected to a prosecution which
would not have gone ahead had they done their jobs properly.
Defendants Brosseuk, McCutchan and O'Donnell are liable for the
consequences of their negligence. Her Majesty the Queen in right of
Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency are vicariously
liable for the joint and several torts of negligence committed by
employees of servants and agents, namely Defendants Todd, Brosseuk,
McCutchan and O'Donnell.
( y ) In April 1999 CRA Agent Mike Leblanc had laid charges against
Jozef Rudolf pursuant to the federal Income Tax Act before a Justice
of the Peace in Penticton ; file 7725 at Creston Provincial Court.
With the material on file at hand, and being a long-time agent of the
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency, Defendant Todd was therefore well
aware in December 2003 that she could have done the same thing Mr.
Leblanc had done to initiate prosecution against Jozef Rudolf, ie. go
before a Justice of the Peace. But, instead, on or about December 9th
2003 CRA Agent Tracy E. Todd arranged with Ross G. Young to have Linda
Chadwick present herself to Justice of the Peace Glassford in
Cranbrook and lay charges against Jozef Rudolf under the federal
Income Tax Act ; file 22695 Provincial Court at Creston. Although
Defendants Tracy Todd, Ross G. Young and Linda Chadwick all knew that
Linda Chadwick was precluded from laying such an Information by
section 244 of the federal Income Tax Act they agreed one with
another, that, Linda Chadwick would mis-represent herself as a "Court
Liaison" so as to be received as the Informant. As Linda Chadwick then
did pretend to the Justice of the Peace she was someone authorized to
lay charges pursuant to the federal Income Tax Act she committed the
crime of personation. Since the conspirators were well aware Linda
Chadwick was statute-barred from doing so, Defendants Todd, Young and
Chadwick conspired to commit the crime of personation.
( z ) Tracy Todd supplied her false Affidavits to Linda Chadwick in
order that a Justice of the Peace would be misled to believe that the
essential element of certain offences against the federal Income Tax
Act ie. proper service of Notice of the demands from the Minister, had
been demonstrated. Linda Chadwick then presented to Justice of the
Peace E. A. Glassford an Information charging Jozef Rudolf with seven
counts of having committed offences against section 238 ( 1) of the
federal Income Tax Act by having failed to provide income tax returns
on Form T1 within a stipulated time. In that they agreed one with
another to do something they knew full well was illegal, Defendants
Tracy Todd, Ross G. Young and Linda Chadwick committed the crime of
conspiring to pervert Justice, contrary to sections 139 (2) and 465 of
the An Act respecting the criminal law RSC.
( aa ) On December 19th 2003 the Plaintiff received the summons to
appear in the Provincial Court at Creston. Since he had never been
served with the Demands from the Minister of National Revenue, which
were the lynchpins of the charges, the Plaintiff was shocked and
distressed. He went directly to the office of Ross G. Young in
Cranbrook and obtained the disclosure packet. He immediately read the
material in it. He immediately noticed the contradiction between the
sworn affidavits of CCRA agent Tracy E. Todd versus her note in the
Brief Summary on the APPROVAL FOR PROSECUTION form, ie, "The Notices
were left on the windshield of his vehicle." The Plaintiff immediately
drew this glaring contradiction to the attention of Prosecutor Young.
( bb ) On January 28th 2004 prior to going in to Court, the Plaintiff
again drew the attention of Ross G. Young to the glaring contradiction
between what CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her Affidavits of
personal service, versus the statement in her Brief Summary that "The
Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle." Contrary to his
obligation pursuant to his Barrister's Oath, contrary, as well, to his
duty as a federal Crown Counsel, Ross G. Young stood up and, without
telling the Court that he was aware the charges were founded in
perjury, arranged to have another date set on which to proceed. So
doing, Ross. G. Young perpetuated the fraud upon the Court.
( cc ) On February 25th 2004, prior to going in to Court, the
Plaintiff again drew the attention of Ross G. Young to the glaring
contradiction between what CCRA Agent Todd had stated in her
Affidavits of personal service, versus the statement in her Brief
Summary that "The Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle."
Contrary to his obligation pursuant to his Barrister's Oath, contrary,
as well, to his duty as a federal Crown Counsel, Ross G. Young stood
up and, without telling the Court that he was aware the charges were
founded in perjury, arranged to have another date set on which to
proceed. So doing, Ross. G. Young perpetuated the fraud upon the
Court.
( dd ) On April 21st 2004, prior to going in to Court, the Plaintiff
again drew the attention of Ross G. Young to the glaring contradiction
between what CCRA Agent Tracy E. Todd had stated in her Affidavits of
personal service, versus the statement in her Brief Summary that "The
Notices were left on the windshield of his vehicle." Contrary to his
obligation pursuant to his Barrister's Oath, contrary, as well, to his
duty as a federal Crown Counsel, Ross G. Young stood up and, without
telling the Court that he was aware the charges were founded in
perjury, arranged to have another date set on which to proceed. So
doing, Ross. G. Young perpetuated the fraud upon the Court.
( ee ) Each of the instances set out in paragraphs ( bb ) ( cc )
( dd ) above, is a separate obstruction / perversion of Justice. Ross
G. Young furthered the original malicious prosecution three more
times. Plaintiff claims that each time this happened his distress at
being prosecuted on false charges increased. By failing to have the
charges stayed for four and a half months after he knew they were
bogus, and by withholding from the Court that knowledge, Defendant
Ross G. Young continued the fraud which Linda Chadwick, Tracy E. Todd
and he had perpetrated upon the Court, which is obstruction /
perversion of Justice. Plaintiff therefore seeks aggravated damages
for the mental distress intentionally inflicted and compounded.
( ff ) Plaintiff has good reason to believe that Defendant Philip W.
McCutchan was made aware by the office of Member of Parliament Jim
Abbott that the Prosecution of Jozef Rudolf was founded in perjury in
April 2004, yet did nothing to prevent further abuse of the process of
the Court. Plaintiff intends to adduce by Interrogatories / Discovery
or at trial, the precise date, and extent, to which Defendant
McCutchan was aware of the fraud upon the Court.
( gg ) One of the main things the Plaintiff kept on requesting of the
Defendants through all the correspondence, from 1996 and thereafter
was that they instruct him concerning the law pertaining to the
validity of the forms used by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency,
upon which returns of income were - ostensibly - required to be
submitted. Contrary to their express duty of care as spelled out in
their own Taxation Operations Manual, the Defendants the ( successive)
Minister of National Revenue, the Canada Customs & Revenue Agency and
Todd refused to provide anything of that nature. Time after time in
his correspondence, the Plaintiff included a copy of parts of the
advertised policy of the Defendants, to remind all-concerned of their
precise duty of care. Plaintiff claims that Taxation Operations Manual
policy 9110 and 9112.1 gave him legitimate expectation that the
Defendants owed him good and sufficient answer to his reasonable
questions arising from their demands. Defendants wilfully refused to
deliver that legal duty. On July 19th 2005 in file 23380 in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia at Vancouver, the Agent for the
Attorney General Lyndsay Smith finally admitted on the record that
there is no law compelling anyone to use so-called "Form T1" when
filing returns of income. Thus, at all times material to the incidents
out of which these Claims arise, the Defendants - all of them - knew,
or were obliged to know, that there was no Act nor Ministerial
Regulation nor Statutory Instrument compelling the Plaintiff to use
Revenue Canada's so-called "Form T1". Yet they prosecuted him for
failing to meet a standard which did not exist in law.
( hh ) As articulated by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the
1999 case of Blair Longley versus Minister of National Revenue
government officials who lie by omission commit malfeasance of public
office. Since the Defendant Minister of National Revenue and his
predecessors as well as the directing mind of the Canada Customs &
Revenue Agency, knew all along that the Plaintiff had the right to see
the written law on this point, or else to be told plainly and timely
that there was no law compelling the use of their so-called "Form T1",
yet they did the opposite : they lied to him by omission. As the
Defendant Tracy E. Todd lied by omission to the Plaintiff, she
committed malfeasance of public office. The Defendants Canada Revenue
Agency, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister for Justice,
the Agent for the Attorney General of Canada Hislop, Colgur & Young,
Ross G. Young, Tony Brosseuk, Brian O'Donnell, Philip McCutchan were
each negligent not doing their duty to prevent Todd's malfeasance of
public office harming the Plaintiff.
( ii ) In sum : from 1998 onward, the Defendants treated the Plaintiff
according to the covert policy taught to officers and employees of the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency by Robert Prior and Paul Pelletier
for dealing with individuals labelled by the Agency as "tax
protesters / detaxers / extreme tax protesters". Plaintiff claims that
because the Defendants had flagged him as a "tax protester" then
refused to answer his reasonable questions, they denied him equal
protection and equal benefit of the law based upon a perceived
political opinion, which is unreasonable discrimination. The Plaintiff
never was a "tax protester". Yet the Defendants' falsely labelled him
as such, then smeared him "across all government databases" ; then,
predicated on that smear, avoided delivering him the minimum standard
of their advertised duty of care ; thereafter, on the basis of their
own false statement and rank perjury, forced him into defending
himself in Court. Plaintiff claims that the entire episode of the
charges in prosecution file 22695 in the Provincial Court at Creston
was a calculated abuse of the process of Her Majesty's Courts for a
partisan political purpose, thus, a malicious prosecution, which is
malfeasance of public office.
Wherefore the Plaintiff claims
First compensation for money spent defending himself against the bogus
charges of 'failing to comply with a demand from the Minister of
National Revenue' in file 22695 Provincial Court at Creston ;
$ 400.
Second damages for monetary value of time lost from his work
necessitated by having to prepare to defend himself against the bogus
charges in file 22695 Provincial Court at Creston ; $ 3360.
Third damages for the sake of the Defendants defaming him as a "tax
protestor" when they knew he was not, then treating him unfairly on
the basis of that unreasonable profile ;
Fourth damages for the distress the Defendants' negligence caused him
as they pursued the bogus charges in file # 22695, especially after he
repeatedly reminded them of their duty of care ;
Fifth punitive damages for the sake of the Defendants selectively and
maliciously prosecuting the Plaintiff according to their
mischaracterization of him as a "tax protestor" ;
Sixth exemplary damages for the Defendants' studied malfeasance of
public office ;
particularly ; by perjury
by criminal defamation
by personation
by conspiracy to commit an indictable offence
by obstructing / perverting Justice
Seventh costs of this action ;
Eighth bonus of special costs for the sake of the Plaintiff pioneering
this novel lawsuit to have officials held accountable after they
refused to admit nor apologize nor remedy their egregious abuse of the
powers and dignity and resources of the Crown against a private
citizen ;
Ninth such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems
meet.
Place of trial : New Westminster British Columbia
Dated this day of October 2005 A. D.
__________________________
Plaintiff
Address for service : PO Box 63009 RPO Highgate 7155 Kingsway Burnaby
British Columbia V5E 4J6
Residential address : 5417 Elsie Holmes Wynndel British Columbia V0B
2N0