Canada Revenue Agency – No Evidence of Jurisdiction or professionalism

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

This Call of Shame is from Canada. I had a supervisor call me about a low level agent because the agent didn’t care he had no evidence of jurisdiction and wa…

Comments

Troll for Truth says:

They can’t prove jurisdiction over a real, live, talking man, but they
always have jurisdiction over the Canadian citizen… And considering funds
and assets are typically held by a Canadian entity one may find it very
difficult to resist collection. The fact that the man is free just means
he can’t go to jail while the fictional world goes to shit. He will be
construed as under the law in fiction-land to a point, but ultimately has
no liability (or control) if he chooses to opt out of the game.

silkhead44 says:

“tax payer did not have his personal identity separate from any corporate
identity which effected his liability for tax and other ‘legal’ purposes,
and documents proffered contrary were ineffective.” he was still recognized
as a “TAX PAYER”
Meads vs Meads

Tony The Smiler says:

More EVIDENCE their BULLSHIT LAW is EVIDENTIALLY mmmm FACTUALLY BULLSHIT.
Always question PERCEIVED AUTHORITY 

Keith OB says:

Thanks Marc.How you gut the legitimacy of a group of men and woman who call
them selves government,by holding their feet to the fire and to show they
are not qualified to forcefully take form me you or anyone. 

gulyguff says:

“im not gonna answer you because you’re gonna rope me into something
you’re gonna use against us.” hahahahaahahahhahahah but we have to
answer them. so much for openness and transparency 

AnCap217 says:

but someone told him he could threaten peaceful individuals, what more
legitimacy does one need?
and facts? well those have nothing to do with continuing to threatens
others.
I mean, if you don’t agree with them just see their judges…they’ll be
honorable and unbiased, right?
another great Call of Shame, Marc.

silkhead44 says:

ask the agent to define “Canada” they don’t define it in the Income tax act

Interpretation Act defines “Canada”, for greater certainty, includes the
internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada;

it matters not what the definitions are but how do they magically apply?

Tony The Smiler says:

They CANNOT GIVE EVIDENCE of JURISDICTION when POLITELY ASKED for THE
EVIDENCE funny that. They BASE THEIR SYSTEM on EVIDENCE, but when ASKED to
PRODUCE their EVIDENCE of APPLICABILITY of THE LAW, the RUN A COUNTRY
FUCKING MILE. WTF LMFAO….. THIS IS THE CONTRADICTION & we all KNOW#### I
LOVE CONTRADICTIONS. He quotes ” it’s YOUR OPINION “. It seems the ACTUAL
TRUTH IS. The APPLICABILITY is ” YOUR OPINION ” LMFAO HEARSAY 

SuperSquark says:

Marc I think you need to add the distinction between Canada ( a fiction)
and a place ( a reality). Physically at a place commonly referred to as
Canada, also known as here, there, up the hill, in the valley, etc…..I’m
not a professional or anything….ha ha.
I have a benefits manager who can’t tell me what its a benefit of, in fact
she doesn’t understand the question. Disingenuous time waster I said. She
did not rebut that.

dhjw says:

“Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you.”

virgule888 says:

I believe a significant admission was produced immediately after the 5:20
mark: “I’ve been trained” That is quite telling.

SuperSquark says:

And this Just in….Maxims of law.
Incerta pro nullius habentur. Things uncertain are held for nothing Dav. 33.
MR STEVENS I WILL HAVE NO PRINCIPLE OR FOUNDATIONS OF LAW IN THIS COURT

ocsob007 says:

the inevitable hang up, strikes again!!! when in doubt, hang up!!! 

SuperSquark says:

Hey, you can take it up with the Minister.
Thanks can you put me through to him please.
I love this idea of poke them till it hurts, then keep poking. Marc you are
a SUPERSTAR

Jack ross says:

and he’s rounding third and it’s a home run folks ‘first” 

commonly known as mark of the house of keen says:

if ‘you’ are ‘in’ Canada then ‘you’ are governed by the rules of that
fiction, however i a man could be ‘on’ Canada and self governing. my PERSON
if a RESIDENT might be GOVERNED while RESIDING IN CANADA, The simple fact
is if a ‘man’ through his/her PERSON is REGISTERED as a RESIDENT
AGENT/VOTER/ELECTOR that REGISTRATION is CONSENT, the VOLUNTARY ACT of
REGISTRATION / APPLICATION / SUBMISSION is where the fiction gains
Joinder. you is plural, act just as a man, not a ewe/you

James Cox says:

+Marc Stevens The “laws” apply ‘cos the “laws” apply. 

Marc Stevens says:
Charles Wakefield says:

Thanks Marc.How you gut the legitimacy of a group of men and woman who call
them selves government,by holding their feet to the fire and to show they
are not qualified to forcefully take form me you or anyone. 

Write a comment

*

*