“The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system“, said Margaret Atwood on Twitter. We agree. There is no rule of law. This is from telling people they are equal, then making some people unequal as officers. Some office holders, such as prosecutors, abuse their offices. However, their office privilege grants them near immunity. So equality is not reality. That is why we have a broken legal system. For income taxes, it causes financial rape.
The #MeToo movement started due to the New York Time’s explosive article on the alleged predatory sexual behaviour of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. The floodgates opened. Women have now named over 100 men, alleging similar behaviour. Canadian author and feminist Margaret Atwood also wrote a Globe and Mail article where she said,
“The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn’t get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it.”
Studies show only about 30% of women report their sexual assaults. The main reason? The legal system often does not treat them seriously or believe them. In addition, the legal system deems the accused innocent until proven guilty.
Companies and institutions are preemptively distancing themselves from these accused. As a result, these individuals are losing their jobs. Meanwhile, lawyers are racking up billable hours.
The public has lost faith in the broken legal system. Not waiting for, or trusting, court verdicts anymore means the public has also lost faith in the government.
How did this come to pass?
Rule of Law means the law applies equally to everyone, including the government (and those working for it). They also tell every one they are equal. Both sound great in theory. It is not reality.
An officer is a legal person that you opt to represent. You can also opt to represent more than one officer. For example, Crown prosecutors are court officers. They are also deemed working as Income Tax Act officers. (This is our Apu’s Theory on how income tax seems to really work).
Prosecutors are nearly immune from prosecution. That is one of the special powers of that office. In theory, this is so they can do their job. In reality, they often abuse this privilege. For example, the Crown prosecutor in the Ivan Henry case doctored the evidence. In the Cliven Bundy case, the prosecutor hid evidence from the court. That abuse of office is why the judge set the five defendants free. And recently, former Conservative cabinet minister and provincial police commissioner Julian Fantino accuses a Canadian judge, lawyers and several police forces of acting improperly and even illegally in the conviction and jailing of a man for contempt of court.
Around 1948 Canada (and the US in 1938) converted to a fact-based pleading system. However, these so-called “facts” need not be the truth! Under such a system, agreed “facts” are just what both sides agree to. Prosecutors quickly figured out how to abuse the system. They would stack multiple charges on the accused. The accused then plea bargains it down to fewer and less serious charges, and to agreed “facts”. In her book Life Sentence, Christie Blatchford also expresses her disgust with Canada’s most infamous plea bargain: with Karla Hamolka.
Law Abiding Citizen is a movie where the victim (played by Gerald Butler) decides to target the broken legal system after a plea bargain by the prosecutor (Jamie Foxx) sets one of his family’s killers free. He targets not only the killer but also the district attorney and others involved in the deal (2:32 movie preview).
Discovery is a hallmark of a fact-based pleading system. It is where both sides establish the truth, er, I mean, the “facts”, of the case.
Critical “facts” for tax evasion cases, such as what is the income type, have no legal definition. It is critical because our research, Apu’s Theory, shows income taxability depends on your type of income. But the Income Tax Act is also obfuscated. Both help prosecutors deem false “facts” that results in tax owing without you knowing how to rebut them. That is why Canada’s income tax evasion conviction rate is 96%. This is much higher than for other crimes (around 64%).
In short, you can be charged, and convicted, of tax offences using words with no legal definition, such as “income” and “source“. (Alternatively, using those words in their natural and ordinary meaning violates your inalienable private property rights). Examples are convictions of Keith Lawson, Michael Millar, Debbie Anderson, Bob and Terry Steinkey, and Bill Mori. Moreover, it seems most lawyers, professional accountants, and judges are not taught how income tax really works.
Prosecutors should not have prosecution immunity. Canada must disclose how individual income tax really works. Margaret Atwood says, “the legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it.” The #MeToo movement shows society is already disposing of it. People must demand reducing not only sexual rape, but also financial rape.
Follow us on Twitter: @ApuNotAnOfficer
This is a Cornerstone Article.