The Keith Lawson tax evasion conviction in Canada is due to entrapment. We proposed earlier that individual income tax entraps Canadians. This extends to tax evasion trials. Entrapment also explains why Canada’s Government wins 96%1 of tax evasion cases, a conviction rate much higher2 than the 64% rate for other crimes.
Entrapment happens because often judges with no tax law experience are presiding over tax evasion cases. They are applying tax laws they do not fully understand with so-called “facts” that could be opposite to what really happened. They are restricting “facts” allowed into court. In addition, jury members, being only finders of fact, cannot ask questions about legal definitions of words. Many key words for tax laws have no legal definition.
This discussion is not professional legal advice.
The Crown is seeking a two-year jail term for a Burnaby man who was part of an organization that counselled hundreds of people to evade3 their income taxes.
In April, Keith David Lawson, 46, was convicted of income tax and GST evasion and counselling to commit fraud in connection with his activities as a teacher with the Paradigm Education Group.
Lawson was an “educator” with the group and instructed 33 students that they didn’t have to pay their taxes under a scheme that has been repeatedly discredited by the courts.
So-called “facts” for legal purposes are not what you think. Legal facts do not always mean they are true. For example, Crown often plea bargains and so prohibits certain facts from being in a case (such as an accused’s criminal record). Alternatively, Crown can agree to allowing even false statements into court. Anything goes so long as all parties agree4. This often results in wrongful convictions. Christie Blatchford’s new book, Life Sentence, has excellent plea bargaining examples resulting in injustices. We highly recommend reading her book!
Canada’s Income Tax Act (“ITA”) uses the word ‘deem’ over 3,600 times. It often deems taxpayers as representing someone else5 and/or their income as somebody else’s (often as Canada’s “public money”6.) Most Canadians have never read the ITA (we don’t blame them; it’s bloody boring). They have no idea what they are deemed as or who the income is deemed to belong to.
The jury supposedly determines the facts while the judge determines the law. In reality this hardly happens. You can see problems from 1.609 kilometres away (that’s a Canadian joke). The parties may agree on so-called “facts” which are NOT what really happened. Judges restrict so-called “facts” from being in court. Judges can even throw out real evidence (read Life Sentence, Chapter 2).
In reality the judge, and not the jury, controls and therefore determines the so-called “facts”.
Life Sentence says not all judges have legal training. Apu’s Theory concludes the Government obfuscated Canada’s tax laws. Tax guru Vern Krishna agrees 7. “Income”, “social insurance number” (styled in all lower case), “prescribed form”, or “prescribed information” have no legal definitions in the ITA. The ITA‘s deeming changes the income’s status. Nor does the ITA say CRA’s T1 form is the only form for filing income 8. The ITA requires using a Social Insurance Number (styled in upper and lower case) on a return of income 9, but CRA does NOT use this type of SIN on their T1 form. Lawyers and judges do not understand any of this. Canadians must or they get charged with tax evasion. The result is the blind is leading (and judging) the blind.
“Income”, “prescribed form”, and “prescribed information” have no legal definitions in the ITA. Despite this, the Crown and the judge mislead the jury that “income” is the amount an individual earns (nothing about its status), and “prescribed information” is filed on CRA’s T1, the only “prescribed form” allowed. The jury innocently accepts all this. Both statements are so misleading they arguably are miscarriages of justice. This is supposed to be fair? It sure as hell isn’t. This is entrapment.
Over a dozen taxpayers filed private property income using Apu’s Theory. None are charged with tax evasion. This shows the Government is deliberately misleading Canadians by not explaining how to file private property income.
First, the income’s taxability depends on the income’s status! But it is never discussed11 whether it is private property or Canada’s public money (and therefore taxable10). Second, CRA currently does not have a form for filing private property income (but they had such a form between 1917 and 1926). Do you smell anything rotten?
The judge determines the law for income tax cases. Guess what? That is also a myth. Tax evasion trials are rare 12. Judges handling tax evasion cases often have no experience with Canada’s tax laws. The Government has obfuscated the ITA so even judges do not know how it really works. They often dismiss new concepts. For example, in another trial the accused 13 said he made his income as an ITA “officer”. That judge’s response was “that’s a bunch of gobblygook”. In an earlier post, we revealed a Department of Justice reference book showing an ITA “employee” could have a relationship to an ITA “officer”. But the judge refused to even look. (He also had never tried an income tax case beforehand either.) Crown, who undoubtedly has access to this book, did not tell the court the accused’s position has merit either 14.
The jury is not allowed to ask about missing legal definitions since their job is only determining the facts (which may or may not be the truth). Blatchford says in her 40 years as a court reporter, she has only witnessed the jury asking the court such questions only ONCE15. She says this is because many judges intimidate their juries. Besides, who would think the Crown and/or judge would deceive the jury? After all, they are the paragons of justice! They must know how the law works! Surely they would never lie or mislead Canadians! (Blatchford disagrees; read Life Sentence for many injustice examples. (Caution: have a barf bag handy. You may start throwing up)). Is that rotten smell getting stronger?
In summary, often judges with no tax law knowledge are presiding over tax evasion cases. They are applying tax laws they do not fully understand to so-called “facts” that could be opposite to what really happened. They often restrict what “facts” are allowed into court. Jury members are prohibited from asking questions about legal definitions, of which there are none anyways for the key tax law words mentioned above.
No wonder Canada’s tax evasion conviction rate is 96%. Entrapment is the basis for Canadian individual income tax, including tax evasion trials. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
In his tax evasion trial, Keith Lawson tried asking Crown for their definition of income. The judge blocked him from doing so. It doesn’t matter that there is no definition of income in the ITA. Income is what Crown says it is. It doesn’t matter Crown is misleading the court, the judge, and the jury.
The Crown misled the jury into believing only the amount of income reported as important. They never addressed the income’s status. The Crown and CRA also misled the jury into believing CRA’s T1 form is for reporting all income regardless of status. Recall the ITA never says CRA’s T1 is the only way for reporting one’s income. Recall also CRA’s T1 uses the SIN as a “social insurance number” contrary to the ITA16. CRA’s T1 form is arguably an illegal form. It only gains legal standing when both parties agree to using it – as another so-called agreed “fact”. Right now something is smelling pretty rotten in court.
Since Keith Lawson did not (as it is legally impossible17) file his private property income as an “educator”18 on CRA’s T1, the jury, wearing blinders (like horses pulling a cart) eagerly supplied by CRA, the Crown, and the judge, of course convicted Keith Lawson of tax evasion. Except that the so-called “facts” in that court are opposite to Keith Lawson’s intent, CRA misleads Canadians by not providing a form for filing private property income like they used to, the law’s obfuscation is misleading the judge, and Crown is misleading both the judge and the jury. Other than that, Keith Lawson had a fair trial 19.
Discussing the income’s status, or the legal impossibility of filing income that stays as private property on CRA’s T1, means exposing their entrapment. It means showing the Government is deliberately misleading professional lawyers and accountants. It means also showing the Government is still gaming the system despite having full knowledge of Apu’s Theory. After all, 50 people received copies: various CRA officers, Department of Finance, Attorney General, and various Ministers.20 The worst is exposing they sent 26 people to jail for something none of them intended21 to do 22. Is teaching Canadians how to keep their property private now a crime? Of course not. That is why the Government shuts down any such discussions. They are in it so deep for so long that admitting entrapment means triggering class action lawsuits. So the governments digs in their heels. They will never admit they are wrong.
In conclusion, your tax dollars are paying for imprisoning such “educators”, er, private property advocates, (at $120,000 per year per person) so the Government has propaganda press releases for intimidating you in continuing being entrapped in their game. What a great use of tax dollars! Remember that barf bag? You might need it now.
“The justice system is the means by which the upper class pays the middle a good living wage to keep the lower class in check.“
In Part 2 you will see how Apu’s Theory easily explains why Keith Lawson is also guilty of GST tax evasion and counselling others to commit fraud. This of course corroborates Apu’s Theory. It also corroborates our opening statement. Individual tax evasion is an overwhelming travesty of justice on all Canadians.
This post is available free from CanadaIncomeTaxIsLegal.is. It is not professional legal advice. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon published this post from Hong Kong. It is stored on a computer server in Iceland. It is covered under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Licence. This means you can reproduce it but not sell it for profit.