Keith Lawson Tax Evasion Conviction Due to Entrapment – Part 1

The Three Meanings of Resident for Real Estate Transactions
September 24, 2016
Officer – Special Powers Explained with Movie Zootopia
October 10, 2016
Show all

Keith Lawson Tax Evasion Conviction Due to Entrapment – Part 1

Keith Lawson tax evasion trial conviction is due to entrapment by Crown CRA and the legal system.

Summary

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.

Background

A September 22, 2016 Vancouver Sun article says,

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.

Judge Controls the Trial

 

Facts are Not Always Facts (Say What?)

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!

ITA Deems Facts You Don’t Even Know

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.

Jury Determining the Facts is a Myth

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”.

Obey The Law – But We Wouldn’t Tell You What It Is

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.

Crown and Judge Often Mislead the Jury

“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.

Apu’s Theory Explains the 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?

Judge (Kinda) Determines the Law

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.

Jury Cannot Ask For Legal Definitions

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?

Judge Applies Laws to So-Called “Facts”

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.

 

Keith Lawson Tax Evasion Conviction is Entrapment

 

Blocked from Asking Definition of Income

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.

Tax Evasion Conviction: Crown Misled 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.

Jury Blinders Provided by CRA, Crown, and Judge

Since Keith Lawson did not (as it is legally impossible17) file his private property income as an “educator18 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.

Conclusion

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.

  • a federal prosecutor to Life Sentence author Christie Blatchford

Coming Up – Part 2

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.

 

  1. CRA Annual Report to Parliament for 201402915, page 58:
  2. Adult criminal court statistics in Canada, 2010/2011, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11646-eng.htm#a4
  3. CRA admits this organization teaches tax avoidance and NOT tax evasion: “Victoria Paradigm educator sentenced for tax evasion and fraud”, http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/cnvctns/bc/bc151126-eng.html. A future post addresses Keith Lawson’s conviction.
  4. Written and signed off by all parties as an “Agreed Statement of Facts”.
  5. Most often as an ITA s.248(1) “officer”
  6. “Public money” as defined by s.2 of the Financial Administration Act, http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-f-11/latest/rsc-1985-c-f-11.html#Interpretation__859
  7. “Greek Protests Over Tax Hikes Might Work”, Vern Krishna, National Post, October 13, 2010.
  8. ITA s.150(1): http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp.html#sec150subsec1
  9. ITA s.237(1): http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp.html#sec237subsec1
  10. What we think income tax is will be discussed in a future post.
  11. As it is never disclosed by Crown, and the accused has a right to full disclosure in order to mount a complete defence, the entire legal process is arguably a miscarriage of justice.
  12. Only 34 people jailed for tax evasion: CRA Annual Report, 2014-2015, page 58. With a 96% conviction rates that means there were only 36 tax evasion trials with jail time. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/nnnl/2014-2015/ar-2014-15-eng.pdf
  13. For example, see R. v. Siggelkow presided by the Honourable Justice E.C. Wilson (but mysteriously no longer on CanLii). The accused was also a Paradigm Education Group “educator” like Keith Lawson.
  14. The Crown, Kim Gowan, retired shortly after this trial.
  15. In all fairness she seems to mostly cover “real” crime cases – murders, rapes, assaults, etc, and not income tax cases.
  16. Compare ITA s.237(1): http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp.html#sec237subsec1 and CRA’s T1 forms at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/formspubs/t1gnrl/llyrs-eng.html
  17. Apu’s Theory concludes CRA’s T1 form can only report income that is Canada’s public money. The owner legally converts any private property income reported on a T1 into public money for Canada.
  18. Paradigm Education Group (“PEG”) taught human rights including private property rights. This is evident from the contract they sold, the PEG Contract for Hire (“CFH”). That Contract states the taxpayer’s income under the CFH stays as private property. While Keith Lawson never worked under the CFH, he sold them. It is logical concluding his own affairs has the same intent.
  19. This is a sarcasm alert for those who are OCD and cannot recognize sarcasm.
  20. See blog post, “I filed taxes without a T1 using Apu’s Theory” at https://canadaincometaxislegal.is/filed-taxes-no-cra-t1/
  21. Tax evasion requires having a guilty mind, (intention) and also a guilty act.
  22. We are not saying they were not guilty. As far as we can see they were all guilty. But did they have a fair trial? No. Did Crown provide full disclosure? No. More analysis is coming in future posts.

Share this info!

Apu
Apu