Canada Revenue Services

Wally Dove is one of Canada’s more persistent anti-government activists. Arguably, he is also one of the most successful. Back in 2004 he and Sonya Zenz (relationship unclear) were charged with tax evasion, conspiracy to evade taxes, and false partnership claims. This led to two reported decisions: R. v. Dove, 2004 CanLII 31861 (Ont. S.C.): http://canlii.ca/t/1hxgc R. v. Dove, 2004 CanLII 45964 (Ont. S.C.): http://canlii.ca/t/1jdl6 In the first case Wally argued that the accused had not committed tax evasion because there was no such thing as the Income Tax Act. Justice O’Connor put it this way (para. 1): … Mr. Dove seeks an order dismissing the charges “because there is no law called the Income Tax Act, Chapter 1 (5th Supp.) R.S.C. 1985, as amended”. In the alternative, he seeks an order requiring the Crown attorney “…to place before the Court, the Income Tax Act…, the very act which the charges in this matter have been laid against the Applicant, by producing a certified copy from the Clerk of the Parliaments”. Dove tried and tried to get a certified copy of the Income Tax Act – he and others phoned government agencies, all in search of the One True Act. The Law Clerk, Parliamentary Counsel, the Clerk of Parliament, and CCH Canadian Limited. No luck. Ergo, if no official copy of the Income Tax Act exists, it can’t really be a law – and the offences are nullities! And the judge rejected Wally’s application: [4] I disagree with his position. The solution to his supposed dilemma is simple. However it is one he has chosen to ignore. In response to his letter to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Colette R. Charlebois of that office replied on July 28, 2004: The Clerk of the Parliaments, who is the custodian of the original Acts of Canada and on whose behalf this office prepares certified copies, can only respond to a request that specifies the Act required to be certified with a full citation (i.e. chapter no. and year of statute) to the Statutes of Canada. If only a portion of an Act is to be certified, it should be identified by section number as well as by the full citation. [5] Ms. Charlebois explains that upon payment of a nominal per page fee, the certified copy requested will be provided. She also provides other suggestions for obtaining copies of public statutes, from local bookstores or from the Canadian Government Publishing, Communication Canada. The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel gave substantially the same answer and advice to friends and supporters of Mr. Dove in response to similar requests, which responses are contained in his application materials. [6] Mr. Dove and his supporters have simply failed to avail themselves of the offer to deliver certified copies of the Act or portions of it upon their advising the Clerk what parts of the very voluminous statute they wish certified, i.e. chapter and section numbers, together with a prescribed nominal fee. I am confident they will receive a certified copy upon compliance with this procedure. [7] I am satisfied the Income Tax Act is a lawfully passed and constitutionally valid statute of Canada. [8] Mr. Dove’s application for a declaration that the Income Tax Act does not exist is dismissed. On to judgment #2! This time Wally and Sonya each have lawyers. The accused made an application to stay the charges they faced and … they win! Freedom! So what was the key to their having defeated the C[C]RA? Simply put, delay. Wally and Sonya successfully argued that the delay in their trial had been so great that it was contrary to justice for the proceeding to continue. In total, it had taken 65 months to reach trial, with 108 appearances. As a consequence the judgment does not directly address whether Wally and Sonya were, in fact, guilty, but it does lay out a little of what they were up to. Both Wally and Sonya were accountants had had set up a partnership that allegedly was structured to evade tax. The scheme was based around an obsolete software package that had been purchased for $8,700, but was valued at $2.85 million. The scheme was to depreciate the software and offset income: para. 4-7. The Crown argued that Wally had engaged in “antics” and those were a substantial cause for delay (paras. 26-27): … The crown attorney argued that the manner in which he conducted his defence, most particularly during the 30 month preliminary inquiry was obstreperous, nonsensical and largely a waste of everyone’s time. Some of the time spent at the preliminary inquiry dealt with motions by Dove respecting matters that would not have been advanced by competent counsel on his behalf. For example, he moved to have the court exclude Ms. Lynn Watson, the chief investigator, from the court. The court had ruled at the outset that she was exempt from the order excluding witnesses. He argued at some length that “…the Crown was using this court for criminal purposes…”, allegedly compelling witnesses “…to give evidence against their will.” Of course, the witnesses had been served with proper subpoenas and had little choice about giving evidence. He sought to have the charges dismissed on grounds he was not one of the persons named in the indictment. He took the position he had copyrighted his name and sold it. He also took the position that he was a member of the “Nishwinobi” Nation and that, as an aboriginal person, the court had no jurisdiction over him. He presented no evidence that he is aboriginal, nor that the Nishwinobi Nation even exists, nor why the court would not have jurisdiction to hear these criminal charges against him. He wrote lengthy letters to crown counsel, the investigator, and the preliminary inquiry judge demanding compensation for alleged wrongs, including using his copywrited name without his permission. On several occasions the court adjourned briefly, usually for no more than an hour or two, to permit Dove to consult with duty counsel. … Both Wally and Sonya argued they were substantially harmed by these delays. For Sonya she ran up a ton of debts and had a hard time finding work: para. 54. Wally suffered even more. Before trial he and his wife had owned two houses and lived a comfortable lifestyle, but instead had run into debt to continue this lawsuit: para. 53. But that was not all (para. 52): Dove suffered physical and emotional stress over and above that expected and associated with any accused person awaiting trial on criminal charges. The extensive delays in this matter resulted in his becoming depressed, according to his wife and his doctor. Dr. Rick Lindall performed a psychological assessment of Dove and gave evidence of his findings and treatment of him. He said, “Mr. Dove also had an elevated score on the Major Depression scale, within in (sic) the Severe Syndrome scales… Mr. Dove reported that he continues to experience psychological/emotional difficulties as a direct consequence of the lawsuit. The symptoms he experiences include: Anxiety, depression, irritability, anger, frustration, apprehensions about health, somatic problems, changes in sleep pattern, diminished libido, disturbing dreams, marital stress, fatigue, and a compromise in cognitive functioning due to stress. The psychological test findings indicate a significant level of affective distress for Mr. Dove in terms of anxiety and depression…” See Ex. 29. Dr. Warsi, another physician with whom he consulted, said, “He experienced an episode of vasovagal syncope in Dec. 2003…” See Ex. 30. … Curiously, litigation on the Dove/Zenz con was still going on as late as last year! In February the Tax Court of Canada refused to permit a constitutional challenge of an aspect of an audit of Dolores Romanuk (Romanuk v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 58: http://canlii.ca/t/fq9wf) who had been one of the subscribers to the software depreciation scam. The gears grind slow at times here in Canada… So, now living free and easy, would Wally make his life afresh and anew? Well, not really. First Wally hooks up with David-Kevin: Lindsay, and in R. v. Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401 (http://canlii.ca/t/1pwgv) provides affidavit evidence on the non-existence of the Income Tax Act. Yep, basically the same argument. Still doesn’t work. So what else do we know about Wally? Well, among other things, Dove claims to be a former auditor of the Canada Revenue Agency, at the time named the Canada Customs Revenue Agency. But he defected, as a “deeply religious man”, given the disturbing things he had witnessed. A lot of the accounts of his time with the CCRA seem to have disappeared off the net, but here are some I found: https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=9418

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html [email protected] Date Bob Hamilton, acting as the Commissioner of Revenue (SIC) CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
PO BOX 3800 STN A
SUDBURY ON
P3A 0C3 Bob Hamilton Account identifier - __________, CRA claim against “____________________” (put your all caps name here) Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent. Take Notice that we are demanding a “validation” that is, competent evidence that establishes some contractual obligation between (YOUR ALL CAPS NAME - remove brackets)(hereinafter ___ your initials - leave brackets) the Person, or me (collectively Us) and you and/or your company, Canada Revenue Agency obligating us to Pay you or the Agency you represent. We do not recall, and our files do not indicate that we have any contractual or lawful obligations to Canada Revenue Agency. Therefore, you are demanded to validate your claim, pursuant to the Laws of (name your province) and Canada and provide Us with following documents, under penalty of perjury; 1. Certified copy of the contract/the alleged Income Tax Act giving rise to alleged debt claimed by your Agency, Canada Revenue Agency. 2. Letter of commitment, signed by an officer of your Agency, attesting to the lawfulness, legitimacy and accuracy of the Claim as well as your Agency's full compliance with all the laws, provincial and federal, including but not limited to the Constitution Act governing your Agency’s actions in relation to its claim. 3. An affidavit, by an officer of the Canada Revenue Agency, that the alleged debt claimed is authorized by an Act lawfully passed by the Parliament of Canada, having obtained the “Royal Assent” which is used in the process giving rise to the claim to this claim . For further clarity, you are commanded to point to “specific legislative authority” in support of ALL actions by your Agency, Canada Revenue Agency and individuals acting and/ or representing the Canada Revenue Agency. As an Officer of an agency, you should also be aware that making unsubstantiated demands for payment, including via email may constitute fraud under federal and/or provincial laws, including the Criminal Code. Also other applicable legislation, the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, before your next communication with me. Once more, before proceeding any further, You and your Agency are commanded to provide me with: a- the aforementioned documents/answers; and/or b- a letter of advise that your agency has NO claim against _________________ (all caps name) within 15 days from the date of this letter considering that the time is of the essence. Failing to provide the above demanded proof(s) of your claim shall constitute you and the Agency you represent have no claim(s) against me. You must provide me with a letter in writing stating your claim, no longer than 21 days from the date of this communication, which shall bind you and your Agency as well. Otherwise, this shall constitute your tacit consent that you are acting of your own accord having assumed personal liabilities for any, and all possible damages of any kind. The implication of your actions may cause Us damage, the amount of which is at our sole discretion. Such financial damages, compensation and expenses are due on demand and any delay in full payment shall be subject to penalties and interest solely at our discretion which can change from time to time without ANY Notice and shall be limited only by relevant sections of duly enacted Acts of Parliament of (name province) and/or Canada. Govern yourself accordingly. Autograph ___________________ ( all caps name) : first name : last name (write your name in lowercase) de jure Attorney/ Creditor C/O Address Lot ___ Block ___ PO Box ___ Village/Town/City [postal code] note: leave square brackets on postal code