Canada Revenue Agency and Department Of (so-called) Justice defraud Canadians Part 4

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


This is a video that some friends from Canada have prepared and asked me to upload. It is about the Canada Revenue Agency thieves, and is part 4 in a series.

The Canada Revenue Agency is full of thieves. The so-called Courts are all bought and paid for clerks masquerading as Judges and the lawyers are all liars. Canada is a communist country and it is about time Canadians started to wake up to what is happening. That is also why they want to guns here because we will get the same thing when we have no means to defend ourselves.

follow me on @sovereigntyintl and don’t forget to vote on the articles and make comments

Support the channel, consider watching one 30 second ad and clicking to find out more.

follow me on Twitter @engineerwin


Email –

For information on how you can obtain a copy of all of my youtube videos in *.mp4 format, as well as a DVD with over 50 searcheable law dictionaries, and other books and forms, contact me privately.

Youtube profile – sovereignliving…

Common Law your ONLY real Remedy playlist

Do It Yourself playlist

The War on Terror is a Fraud playlist

Peace Officers vs PIGs Playlist

Bankster Thieves Playlist

BAR Members and their Satanic Connections

Do You Know Who You Are playlist

Fire and United Nations Judicial Whores Playlist

CIA Operated Media

Canada Border PIGs

US Border PIGs


Boom Patrol Cockles says:

in as much as every government is an artificial person, and a creation of the mind only…This is not held within the act quoted?


Most CBP people i know are insanely dumb

jim vari says:

this is a letter that will knock your sock off .
all power legally remains there until such time as the
Provinces sign an _agreement and ratify a constitution whereby they may delegate such powers as they wish to a central government of their own creation. In the meantime. Canada exists as ten political units without a political superior
Spruce Grove, Alta., R.R. I,
November 23rd, 1976.
The Hon. Rene Levesque,
Premier-elect, Province of Quebec,
Quebec, P.Q.
Dear Mr. Levesque:
Congratulations on your magnificent personal victory and that of your Parti Quebecois in the recent Quebec election. ·
As a student of Canadian constitutional history and of Canadian ·constitutional problems for some 40 years, I am tremendously interested in the constitutional implications of your recent political victory..For 14 years, from 1935 to 1949, it was my privilege to serve as a member of the House of Commons, from the province of Alberta. The withholding of assent to some Alberta legislation in those years. by the Lieutenant-Governor and the disallowance of other Alberta legislation by the people at Ottawa, set me to investigating how these things could be.I was assisted in my studies by R. Rogers Smith, who was personally acquainted with a onetime private secretary to John A. MacDenald at the time when the B.N.A. ·Act was being enacted Through this source I 'have become acquainted with much information concerning the history of the· B.N.A. Act which is not to be found in text books. All this information has led me to the conclusion that the existing constitutional circumstances are shocking to the point of unbelief. However, in my considered.opinion, after 40 years of intensive study, these existing constitutional circumstances are of such a nature ·that they can be of extreme advantage to you in governing your province. I am enclosing copies of some of the addresses which I delivered in the House of Commons on the subject, as well as copies of a pamphlet by Mr •.Smith; dealing with the same subject. If you have not already been made acquainted with this material, I trust it will prove enlightening and helpful to you in the constitution~I considerations in which you obviously are going to become involved. Although the enclosed material should give you a clear outline of what I conceive to be ·
your present standing constitutionally as a province,l would like to give you a brief summary of what I believe to be your present position.So far as concerned, rather than it being necessary to seek separation rights through a referendum, THE PROVINCE OF .. QUEBEC IS ALREADY
COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONALLY ·SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF CANADA ! ! ! ! This is equally true of every other province in Canada and has been so since December 11, 1931, through the Statute of Westminster.HOW CAN YOU BE DIVORCED IF YOU HA VE NEVER BEEN MARRIED?
In other words, ever since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, by the British Government, each of the provinces of Canada been a completely sovereign
and independent state, and because the provinces have signed nothing since then constituting a Federal Union and a Federal Government, and because no such treaty .
has been ratified by the people of Canada,the provinces still enjoy the status of sovereignty and are privileged to use it in any way they see fit. As you will observe from the enclosed addresses, I quote eminent Canadian constitutional authorities as suggesting that the only and logical solution to the existing constitutional circumstances is the drafting and the adoption of a proper federal constitution in which the provinces can reserve for themselves any and all powers necessary to enable them to govern their provinces successfully.I am sure you can appreciate that if this were done, you could solve your economic and other problems in Quebec without resorting to separation. I feel sure that having the ability to solve your problems and still remai_. constitutionally part of the country of Canada, would be much more satisfactory to your.supporters as well as to others
within your province.The a summary of the reasons for the things I have just stated:
. . '
1. At the time of Confederation movement in Canada, the Provinces of Canada;
Nova Scotia and New· Brunswick desired to form a Federal Union. ·
2. The Quebec Resolutions of 1864. provided .for a Federal Union.
3. The Bill drafted by tlie Canadian degates at the London Conference in 1866
also provided for a Federal Union.
4 •. The Colonial Office of the Imperial Parliament was not disposed to grant the
Provinces of Canada their request for a Federal Union.
S. The British North America Act enacted by the Imperial Parliament carried
out neither the spirit nor the terms of the Quebec Resolutions.
6. Canada did not become a Federal Union or a Confederation under the British
North America Act, but rather a United Colony. The privilege of federation,
therefore, was still a future privilege for the province~ of Canada.
7. The Parliament of Canada did not become the government of Canada, much
Jess a federal government; it became merely the central legislature of a United
Colony, a legislative body whose only power was that of aiding -and advising the
Governor~General as agent of the Imperial Parliament.
8. The British North America Act, as enacted by the Imperial Parliament, was
not a constitution but merely an act of the Imperial Parliament which united
four colonies in Canada into one colony, with the supreme authority still
remaining in the bands of the British government.
9. The privilege of federating became realizable for the provinces of Canada,
only through the enactment of the Statute of Westminster on December 11, 1931.
Through this statute, the Imperial Parliament relinquished to the people' of
Canada their sovereign rights, and through them to their Provincial
.governments as their most direct agents.
· 10. Since December 11, 1931, the Provinces of Canada have not acted on their newly acquired status in the forming of a Federal Union, nor have the people of ·Canada ratified a constitution. Therefore, the original proposition, namely: that
all power to govern in Canada resides at the moment, with the Provinces of Canada; and, that all power legally remains there until such time as the Provinces sign an _agreement and ratify a constitution whereby they may delegate
such powers as they wish to a central government of their own creation. In the meantime, Canada exists as ten political units without a political superior.Should you consider that there is merit in the information which I have given you, I
would be very happy to meet with you personally to discuss in greater depth the implications of the unprecedented constitutional circumstances prevailing in Canada. Yours for a better Canada,
Walter F. Kuhl
– [Member of Parliament for Jasper-Edson, 1935-1949]

Tarabaspence says:

Brother please get on It should replace Facebook since there is NO censorship and NO "Community Standards"

MTpockets Woodenickle says:

I so don't want to hear her. I like pissed off patriots personally!

carlos vangrinder says:

My question to anyone that can answer. Who is Canada Revenue Agency and where is their corporation listed, since they can only deal with corporations they must be one too.

Sovereign17 says:

About two months ago, I had a package come from another country and the border agency was charging me a fee for the package. I informed the Canada Post guy that there was no jurisdiction as I wasn't getting a wage, benefits, pension, and other necessary expenses as well as they were engaging with the employer (public funding), quite simply bias and prejudice was being used. I contacted Canada Post customer service as well as the border agency and I didn't see the charge after I spoke up about it. I have also had an incident that I recorded on my Youtube channel regarding an interaction with peace officers on public transportation and disputed the jurisdiction where I got a 10 page report back from the city after an investigation. I recently purchased a book titled "Unjust by Design" in relation to administrative law. I hope to god that Canadians can defeat this.

Sovereign17 says:

In regards to the subject matter in the video relating to the bible and the verse found in Romans 2:11; to me that means not to have bias or prejudice towards another. In administrative law, there is to be no bias or prejudice (its also referred to natural justice within the law) and that all public employees are to be using impartiality as if they are using bias as well as negligence, they are then outside of the law and no longer have possible legal immunity.

Sovereign17 says:

There is no legal definition of income in the Canadian Law Dictionary and even in the provincial and federal legislation (administrative law), there is no definition of the word as well including the Interpretation Acts.

Write a comment