|
Canada - Court Update: R v. Gibbs BCPC
|
sand-@wwdb.org
|
Jun 10, 2003 13:00 PDT
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C32F50.18C9BFB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Here is a release on the above subject sent out by Mr.
Watson.
Also, below, is an email which I sent out to one of my
bookkeeping clients in response to a question he asked after
seeing the article in the Vancouver Sun today.
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: nun-@canada.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:19 AM
Subject: government corruption disguised by journalistic
perfidy
To : Sandra Gibbs / and a few others interested in the
integrity of government
Justice Critic for the Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To
Think For Themselves & Be Their Own Politicians
Just in case you haven't seen it, on page B5 of today's
Vancouver Slum is a snippet headed "Bookkeeper fined for
failing to file income tax". That would be you, Ms G.
Usually, I wouldn't use the term "corporate blow job" in my
own writing ; but because it's bandied-about lately in every
story about Rafe Mair's firing, I will.
What's regurgitated by the Slum "reporter", is nothing more
than a re-worked CCRA press release, exemplifying perfectly
the meaning of the slang "corporate blow job".
It's a classic example of the concept described in the book
"Into the Buzzsaw", about the demise of the free press in
America, in which a CIA official is quoted saying "we
realized we could buy a journalist cheaper than a call
girl".
So the question is begged : precisely what do the Slum
editors receive quid pro quo for positioning this piece of
propaganda in such a spot ... the top of the page, B5, on
the right, in the business section = one of the
HIGHEST-visibility places in the paper for certain readers /
the business community?
We know that CCRA can "create debt" [their own term] with
the stroke of a pen, and we also know that they can make
that "debt" go away with the wave of the hand. You think
that such power DOESN'T get abused ?! Just recall the case
where Jean Chretien's pals, the Bronfmann family trust,
waltzed Billions of dollars out of Canada without paying a
cent of the tax owed. As Lord Acton put it once and for all
"Power corrupts ; absolute power corrupts absolutely".
How is it that Slum reporter Neal Hall manages to have at
his fingertips the fact (is it?) that "A total of 87 Lower
Mainland residents were convicted of failing to file tax
returns last year ..." yet when I - a mere citizen - put
that very question to CCRA in a formal Access to Information
request, it was denied with the excuse : 'it wasn't their
job to supply me with the figures.' Dif'rnt stroke for
dif'rn't folks, I guess. Apparently someone at the Slum
knows how to stroke powerful people at Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency, while I don't ... and certainly won't.
What exactly does Mr. Hall, and the Vancouver Slum
editorship, get in return for applying their magic little
fingers to the keyboard... or elsewhere ? Did he, or anyone
else in the so-called "newsroom", do the bare minimum any
cub reporter would do ... contact the subject of the story?
Of course not. The Slum isn't in the business of fairly
reporting on the resentment seething away against the
corrupt income tax system. The corporate agenda of CanWest
Globa / Southam is the opposite : to maintain the flow of
funds with which the central governing clique is so
profligate. Does the name Izzy Asper ring a bell ?
For the last four years of Ms. Gibb's case, which including
a cutting-edge Constitutional Challenge to the federal
Income Tax Act, no one from the Slum so much as showed up in
Court.
Where was Mr. Hall, or any of his colleagues, when Sandra
Gibbs played in Court the dramatic video of CCRA officials
assaulting a citizen in the course of their job ? Where
was the analysis of Judge Weitzel outright denying her
ability to defend herself by arguing 'abuse of process';
preventing her proving anyone flagged as a "tax protester"
is automatically prosecuted?
Is it not newsworthy - a condemnation of Prosecutor Jana
Hyman's ethics, not to mention the Department of Justice -
that Sandra Gibbs' co-accused, Sharon Enman, got off the
exact same charges, scot-free after agreeing to testify
against her former partner?! Can you say "perversion of
justice", kiddies ?
Oh yes ... there's a lot more to the story than you'll learn
from the 'article' by Mr. Hall. But nothing is so useless
it cannot at least be used as a bad example. He does prove,
once again, that the Slum is nothing but a propaganda
outfall for the natural governing party.
Forty years ago I was a Sun paperboy ; I was happy to be
part of what I thought was an important part of the
community, even as small a role as it was. I had my first
letter to the Editor published in the Sun when I was
fifteen, criticizing reprobate Jack Wasserman. In those
days, what The Sun printed, mattered.
Today, the Slum is an embarrassement to the city. 1% news,
19% spindoctoring for the central government, and 80% ads.
The Slum, as it is now, has degenerated to BC's version of
Pravda ... it prints whatever Izzy wants, and that's
whatever Izzy's pal Jean Chretien wants.
The really ominous part is that Jean Chretien's
spearchucker, infamous dirty-trickster Warren Kinsella, is
in the thick of the rank abuse of the justice system for
political ends. It comes as no surprise, then, that
anything touching on the 'tax honesty movement' put out by
the Slum is only the Liberal Partyline ... protecting the
cashcow / one of the essential mechanisms Karl Marx set out
for communism to succeed ... the graduated income tax.
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: SJG [mailto:sand-@wwdb.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:41 PM
To: 'John C
Subject: RE: Article about you in the Vancouver Sun
John and Mark,
The case the Vancouver Sun reported on was a press release
issued by CCRA, the government agency that brought the
prosecution on. The reporter never called me for my
comments - a fact that is being taken up with his editor,
and if necessary the Newspaper Guild.
The judgement in this case is under appeal, which is what I
would have indicated to the reporter had he called.
The odyssey I entered into began 5 years ago. The story
begins with a single question asked in August 1998 of a CCRA
agent. Please "Show Me The Law".
Sadly, the "Law" is not available to see except in a
"Private Publisher's" version which has a disclaimer on the
inside cover stating clearly that this publication cannot be
used as a true copy of the legislation. In fact, the Queen's
printer is unable to provide any citizen with a "true and
certified" copy, bound as one, of the Income Tax Act for any
year after 1985.
My decision was to ask questions that would provide me with
the information that I felt I needed before I could file my
own tax returns. It is my belief that this information
should be available to me, the clients that I am privileged
to serve, and to any Canadian who wishes to know and see the
laws which we are expected to follow.
And I stand firmly on that position today.
This was a personal decision, and not one taken lightly.
The irony of my work position was not missed by the judge
along the way. It became quite clear during the "trial" that
my self-representation/self-litigation was well handled and
represented growing concerns across the country that the
"Tax Collection Agency" might be "targeting" persons who
have the temerity to ask questions.
I am NOT a tax evader. I do not believe that I am entitled,
nor is anyone entitled, to abdicate my civic responsibility
to equally and fairly share the costs of the country that I
am extremely proud to be a citizen of. I have never stated,
nor do I intend to not pay any tax that rightfully is due.
I chose to ask questions. I chose to seek a better
understanding and clarification, as is my right and the
right of all citizens in a democracy.
I do not counsel my clients to take any course, other than
what is legal and within their own conscious. I am proud of
the clients that I assist, have never compromised their best
interests, and intend to continue to help foster and grow
the businesses of my clients to the best of my ability.
It is odd, though, how one becomes politicized in this
jurisdiction.
And I can certainly understand your question and your
concern.
I will be pleased and willing to sit down with you to
discuss this further, and would be happy to show you any
documentation on this case that you would wish to see.
Regards,
Sandra Gibbs
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: John C.,
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:40 AM
To: Sandra Gibbs
Subject: Article about you in the Vancouver Sun
I know that the the media always has a skewed perspective of
the world so that is why Mark and myself would love to hear
your side of the story.
See you tomorrow
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C32F50.18C9BFB0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Here is a release on the above subject sent out by
Mr. Watson.<BR><BR>Also, below, is an email which I sent out to one of my
bookkeeping clients in response to a question he asked after seeing the article
in the Vancouver Sun today.<BR></P>
<P>
<HR>
</P>
<P><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: nun-@canada.com<BR>Sent: Tuesday,
June 10, 2003 11:19 AM<BR><BR>Subject: government corruption disguised by
journalistic perfidy<BR><BR><BR>To : Sandra Gibbs / and a few others interested
in the integrity of government<BR><BR>>From : Gordon S. Watson<BR><BR>Justice
Critic for the Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves &
Be Their Own Politicians<BR><BR>Just in case you haven't seen it, on page B5 of
today's Vancouver Slum is a snippet headed "Bookkeeper fined for failing to file
income tax". That would be you, Ms G.<BR><BR>Usually, I wouldn't use the term
"corporate blow job" in my own writing ; but because it's bandied-about lately
in every story about Rafe Mair's firing, I will.<BR><BR>What's regurgitated by
the Slum "reporter", is nothing more than a re-worked CCRA press release,
exemplifying perfectly the meaning of the slang "corporate blow
job".<BR><BR>It's a classic example of the concept described in the book "Into
the Buzzsaw", about the demise of the free press in America, in which a CIA
official is quoted saying "we realized we could buy a journalist cheaper than a
call girl".<BR><BR>So the question is begged : precisely what do the Slum
editors receive quid pro quo for positioning this piece of propaganda in such a
spot ... the top of the page, B5, on the right, in the business section = one of
the HIGHEST-visibility places in the paper for certain readers / the business
community?<BR><BR>We know that CCRA can "create debt" [their own term] with the
stroke of a pen, and we also know that they can make that "debt" go away with
the wave of the hand. You think that such power DOESN'T get abused ?! Just
recall the case where Jean Chretien's pals, the Bronfmann family trust, waltzed
Billions of dollars out of Canada without paying a cent of the tax owed.
As Lord Acton put it once and for all "Power corrupts ; absolute power corrupts
absolutely".<BR><BR>How is it that Slum reporter Neal Hall manages to have at
his fingertips the fact (is it?) that "A total of 87 Lower Mainland residents
were convicted of failing to file tax returns last year ..." yet when I - a mere
citizen - put that very question to CCRA in a formal Access to Information
request, it was denied with the excuse : 'it wasn't their job to supply me with
the figures.' Dif'rnt stroke for dif'rn't folks, I guess. Apparently someone at
the Slum knows how to stroke powerful people at Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, while I don't ... and certainly won't.<BR><BR>What exactly does Mr.
Hall, and the Vancouver Slum editorship, get in return for applying their
magic little fingers to the keyboard... or elsewhere ? Did he, or anyone
else in the so-called "newsroom", do the bare minimum any cub reporter
would do ... contact the subject of the story? Of course not.
The Slum isn't in the business of fairly reporting on the resentment seething
away against the corrupt income tax system. The corporate agenda of CanWest
Globa / Southam is the opposite : to maintain the flow of funds with which the
central governing clique is so profligate. Does the name Izzy Asper
ring a bell ?<BR><BR>For the last four years of Ms. Gibb's case, which
including a cutting-edge Constitutional Challenge to the federal Income Tax Act,
no one from the Slum so much as showed up in Court. <BR><BR>Where was Mr.
Hall, or any of his colleagues, when Sandra Gibbs played in Court the dramatic
video of CCRA officials assaulting a citizen in the course of their job ?
Where<BR>was the analysis of Judge Weitzel outright denying her ability to
defend herself by arguing 'abuse of process'; preventing her proving anyone
flagged as a "tax protester" is automatically prosecuted? <BR><BR>Is it not
newsworthy - a condemnation of Prosecutor Jana Hyman's ethics, not to mention
the Department of Justice - that Sandra Gibbs' co-accused, Sharon Enman,
got off the exact same charges, scot-free after agreeing to testify against her
former partner?! Can you say "perversion of justice", kiddies ?<BR><BR>Oh yes
... there's a lot more to the story than you'll learn from the 'article' by Mr.
Hall. But nothing is so useless it cannot at least be used as a bad
example. He does prove, once again, that the Slum is nothing but a
propaganda outfall for the natural governing party. <BR><BR>Forty years ago
I was a Sun paperboy ; I was happy to be part of what I thought was an important
part of the community, even as small a role as it was. I had my first letter to
the Editor published in the Sun when I was fifteen, criticizing reprobate Jack
Wasserman. In those days, what The Sun printed,
mattered. <BR><BR>Today, the Slum is an embarrassement to the city.
1% news, 19% spindoctoring for the central government, and 80% ads.
The Slum, as it is now, has degenerated to BC's version of Pravda ... it
prints whatever Izzy wants, and that's whatever Izzy's pal Jean Chretien
wants. <BR><BR>The really ominous part is that Jean Chretien's
spearchucker, infamous dirty-trickster Warren Kinsella, is in the thick of the
rank abuse of the justice system for political ends. It comes as no
surprise, then, that anything touching on the 'tax honesty movement' put out by
the Slum is only the Liberal Partyline ... protecting the cashcow / one of the
essential mechanisms Karl Marx set out for communism to succeed ... the
graduated income tax.<BR></P>
<P>
<HR>
</P><FONT size=2>
<P>-----Original Message-----</P>
<P>From: SJG [mailto:sand-@wwdb.org]</P>
<P>Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:41 PM</P>
<P>To: 'John C</P>
<P>Subject: RE: Article about you in the Vancouver Sun</P>
<P>John and Mark,</P>
<P>The case the Vancouver Sun reported on was a press release issued by CCRA,
the government agency that brought the prosecution on. The reporter never called
me for my comments - a fact that is being taken up with his editor, and if
necessary the Newspaper Guild.</P>
<P>The judgement in this case is under appeal, which is what I would have
indicated to the reporter had he called.</P>
<P>The odyssey I entered into began 5 years ago. The story begins with a single
question asked in August 1998 of a CCRA agent. Please "Show Me The Law".</P>
<P>Sadly, the "Law" is not available to see except in a "Private Publisher's"
version which has a disclaimer on the inside cover stating clearly that this
publication cannot be used as a true copy of the legislation. In fact, the
Queen's printer is unable to provide any citizen with a "true and certified"
copy, bound as one, of the Income Tax Act for any year after 1985.</P>
<P>My decision was to ask questions that would provide me with the information
that I felt I needed before I could file my own tax returns. It is my belief
that this information should be available to me, the clients that I am
privileged to serve, and to any Canadian who wishes to know and see the laws
which we are expected to follow.</P>
<P>And I stand firmly on that position today.</P>
<P>This was a personal decision, and not one taken lightly.</P>
<P>The irony of my work position was not missed by the judge along the way. It
became quite clear during the "trial" that my
self-representation/self-litigation was well handled and represented growing
concerns across the country that the "Tax Collection Agency" might be
"targeting" persons who have the temerity to ask questions.</P>
<P>I am NOT a tax evader. I do not believe that I am entitled, nor is anyone
entitled, to abdicate my civic responsibility to equally and fairly share the
costs of the country that I am extremely proud to be a citizen of. I have never
stated, nor do I intend to not pay any tax that rightfully is due.</P>
<P>I chose to ask questions. I chose to seek a better understanding and
clarification, as is my right and the right of all citizens in a democracy.</P>
<P>I do not counsel my clients to take any course, other than what is legal and
within their own conscious. I am proud of the clients that I assist, have never
compromised their best interests, and intend to continue to help foster and grow
the businesses of my clients to the best of my ability.</P>
<P>It is odd, though, how one becomes politicized in this jurisdiction.</P>
<P>And I can certainly understand your question and your concern.</P>
<P>I will be pleased and willing to sit down with you to discuss this further,
and would be happy to show you any documentation on this case that you would
wish to see.</P>
<P>Regards,</P>
<P>Sandra Gibbs</P>
<P>
<HR>
</P>
<P>-----Original Message-----</P>
<P>From: John C., </P>
<P>Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:40 AM</P>
<P>To: Sandra Gibbs</P>
<P>Subject: Article about you in the Vancouver Sun</P>
<P> </P>
<P>I know that the the media always has a skewed perspective of the world so
that is why Mark and myself would love to hear your side of the story.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>See you tomorrow</P>
<P>
<HR>
</P></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C32F50.18C9BFB0--
|
|
 |
|
