Woody Langford - Detaxer Lawyer and Tax Evader

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Woody Langford - Detaxer Lawyer and Tax Evader

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:24 pm

Woody tries hard to to enjoy life every day and to get out of bed every morning with a smile on his face. However he's probably finding that a bit of a challenge at the moment. A little mini-bio he penned makes everything seem copacetic;

http://www.simsco.mb.ca/wlangford.htm

But, as we all are prone to do, he left a few negative details out. Minor, almost irrelevant items such as his recent conviction for income tax evasion, his divorce, and his owing the government about $700,000. There's also this very recent notice issued by the Law Society of Manitoba limiting the legal advice that Woody, still for the moment a practicing lawyer, is allowed to give;

NOTICE OF RESTRICTED PRACTICE

TAKE NOTICE that by undertaking to The Law Society of Manitoba signed on June 15, 2017, BRIAN ATTWOOD (WOODY) LANGFORD is restricted from providing any clients with advice with respect to the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act.

DATED at the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, this 16th day of June, 2017.


http://www.lawsociety.mb.ca/lawyer-regulation/discipline-notices/Langford_Restrictions.pdf/view

Has Woody been giving bad tax law advice? Advice that he himself followed to his great detriment? It certainly looks like it. His misfortunes seem to have started over his purported belief that the Canadian Income Tax Act is not constitutional and he therefore did not have to pay taxes. So he didn't. Instead he filed income tax returns but put down nil income.

[5] An Agreed Statement of Facts was filed.

[6] The Applicant is a practicing lawyer in Manitoba, and has been since 1980.

[7] The Applicant signed and filed an income tax return for each year 2002 - 2010 with the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”). On each return the Applicant reported no income.

[8] An investigation by CRA determined that during each of the years 2002 - 2010, the Applicant had received payment for legal services. It is agreed by the Applicant that the total amount of unreported income for the taxation years 2002 - 2010 is $622,820 and that the total amount of alleged unpaid federal income tax based on the CRA assessment for those years is $99,053.

[9] As a result of not reporting income for the years 2002 - 2010, and not paying income tax on the income he had received as payment for his legal services during those years, the Applicant was charged with the offences under the Income Tax Act. The Applicant was also charged under subsections 327(1)(a) and (c) of the Excise Tax Act for failing to remit GST in the amount of $39,647 based on income he received for his legal services during those years. The Applicant reached a civil settlement with CRA and is no longer in arrears for GST.


Specifically the charges were;

The Applicant is charged with the following offences:

• Nine counts of making or participating in, assenting to or acquiescing in the making of false or deceptive statements in his T1 Individual Tax Returns, by understating his taxable income, contrary to section 239(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. There is one charge for each of the nine taxation years 2002 through 2010;

• Two counts of unlawfully and willfully evading the payment of taxes, imposed by the Income Tax Act by understating his taxable income and evading payment of income tax thereon, contrary to section 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. There is one charge for the taxation years 2002 through 2008, and one charge for the taxation years 2009 and 2010;

• Four counts of making false or deceptive statements in Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) Returns, by understating the GST, contrary to section 327(1)(a) of the Excise Tax Act. There is one charge for each of four filing periods that collectively span from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007; and

• One count of willfully evading or attempting to evade remittance of taxes imposed by the Excise Tax Act, contrary to section 327(1)(c) of the Excise Tax Act. That count spans June 30, 2003 to October 1, 2008.


R v Langford
2015 MBPC 58
http://canlii.ca/t/gn106

The cited decision was the result of a hearing which took place during his income tax evasion trial and was a desperate attempt by Woody to stop the trial with a hopeless argument.

If we rewind history Woody could have avoided the tax evasion charges and still made his constitutional arguments by filing his tax returns with his actual income declared but with a statement in the returns that he was constitutionally exempt from tax and was therefore not including any income tax payments. He would have been reassessed but he could have appealed the reassessments and put his arguments to the Tax Court of Canada. Since he'd accurately declared his income there would have been no income tax evasion, just an unwillingness to pay. Had he lost at Tax Court he would have just been a routine collection problem rather than a tax evader. However he chose not to rely on his claimed belief and instead decided not to tell the government about his income. So he ended up in the worst of all possible worlds, charged with tax evasion and having to make his doomed argument in court anyhow.

Why Doomed? Because his arguments had already been litigated to death.

[43] The very issue put forward by the Applicant has been considered and decided by other courts.

[44] It is settled law that the Income Tax Act is validly enacted federal legislation pursuant to section 91(3) of the Constitution Act, and that section 92 (giving provinces exclusive power to enact direct taxation in the provinces) does not take away Parliament’s power given by section 91(3) to directly tax Canadians (Caron v. The King 1924 CanLII 461 (UK JCPC), [1924] A.C. 999; and more recently (Frank) Bruno v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (24 January, 2002), Vancouver CA027674 (B.C.C.A.).

[45] In Re Anti-Inflation Act 1976 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that direct taxation is within Parliament’s legislative jurisdiction.

[47] As previously indicated, the exact issue raised by the Applicant was specifically addressed by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Winterhaven Stables Limited v. Canada (Attorney General), 1988 ABCA 334 (CanLII). An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied ([1989] 1 SCR xvi at 215), so at this time, the Winterhaven decision is the most authoritative decision on this issue.


Note that Winterhaven was decided in the government's favour twelve years before Woody decided that he wasn't taxable based on the same arguments.

So what were Woody's DOA arguments? He was arguing a position which was very popular with Canadian Detaxers at the turn of the millennium.

[13] The Applicant’s position is that the Income Tax Act is ultra vires Parliament because it imposes a direct tax within the province in order to raise revenue for provincial purposes, which is a matter that is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature under section 92(2) Constitution Act, 1867. The Applicant argues that all monies raised by direct taxation of Manitobans and used in Manitoba for provincial purposes can, constitutionally, only be raised pursuant to provincial legislation. The Applicant points to specific sums of money that are disbursed by the Government of Canada and are used for provincial purposes in Manitoba, and says that since those monies, or at least some of them, are raised by direct taxation of Manitobans pursuant to the Income Tax Act, such legislation is unconstitutional as it encroaches on exclusive provincial jurisdiction.


Woody relied on his interpretation of the Constitution Act of 1867 to make this argument but, not surprisingly, the Crown went to the same Act to show that Woody was wrong;

[14] The Respondent and the Attorney General of Manitoba agree that the Income Tax Act imposes a direct tax, but say that the Income Tax Act is intra vires Parliament, on the basis that section 91(3) Constitution Act, 1867 gives Parliament the authority to raise money “by any mode or system of taxation”, which includes direct taxation. The Respondent and the Attorney General of Manitoba agree that the Government of Canada returns some of the monies it raises by income tax back to the provinces and that such monies are used for provincial purposes. But, they say, the fact monies are returned to the provinces by the Government of Canada, by means of subsidies, grants, shared cost programs and equalization payments, which are then used for provincial purposes, is constitutionally within Parliament’s spending jurisdiction, and does not equate to Parliament exceeding its constitutional jurisdiction to raise monies by direct taxation from all Canadians.


And, of course, the knee in the groin;

[15] The Respondent and the Attorney General of Manitoba submit that the very argument the Applicant makes before this court has made before other courts, and has been rejected.


Since the issue is indeed res juricata the court could have just phoned this one in by relying on precedence. Instead the judge did a detailed analysis of the arguments behind Woody's Notice of Constitutional Question. Woody's point was very basic. In his interpretation the Constitution Act did not allow the federal government of Canada to spend money for the benefit of individual provinces if that money was raised by a direct tax (ie. Income tax). Since the federal government had clearly spent tax money on the provinces it had acted unconstitutionally and the Income Tax Act was invalid.

[19] The real crux of the issue raised by the Applicant is whether the fact the federal government spends some of the monies it raises by the imposition of income tax by returning it to the provincial governments, and that such monies are ultimately used for provincial purposes, makes the Income Tax Act unconstitutional.


While the court went into considerable analysis this was the key paragraph;

[32] Indeed, section 92 constrains the provinces in terms of both raising revenue and spending revenue. Provinces can only raise money by direct taxation within the province, and that money must be spent on provincial purposes. But section 91 only deals with the federal government’s raising of revenue by direct taxation. It does not contain any limits as to how the federal government must spend the monies raised by such taxation. The jurisprudence and legislation provide that the federal government may spend money as it sees fit. There are no constitutional limits on Parliament’s spending powers except that they must be for “the public purpose” as required by section 106.


In other words the Act constrains how the provinces raise and spend tax money but is silent on how the federal government can spend it. Woody had taken section 92, which applied to provincial taxing and spending, and incorrectly also applied it to the federal government. So poor Woody's arguments were doomed leaving Woody in the position of having deliberately not reported $623,000 of taxable income and having no defensible legal basis for not reporting it.

[55] The court’s analysis set out above results in the conclusion that the Income Tax Act is intra vires Parliament, falling within Parliament’s authority to raise money “by any mode or system of taxation” as provided for in section 91(3) Constitution Act, 1867.

[56] Further, the argument made by the Applicant has been made before, in superior courts, including in the Winterhaven and Hoffman cases. Those courts have found the Income Tax Act to be intra vires, that Parliament is legally competent to impose direct tax by income tax, that imposing and collecting such tax does not fall outside of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and nor does it infringe on the taxation powers granted to the provinces under section 92 Constitution Act, 1867.

[57] This court specifically inquired of the Applicant, during submissions, whether there were any arguments he was able to advance that had not been considered by the superior courts in the cases referred to. The Applicant did not make any argument not advanced and considered in those cases.

[58] Given the principle of stare decisis, and that the very issue argued by the Applicant has already been decided by the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench in Hoffman, this court must come to the same conclusion as was reached in Hoffman.

[59] The Income Tax Act is intra vires Parliament and is constitutional.

[60] The Applicant is not entitled to a constitutional exemption.

[61] The Applicant’s constitutional application is dismissed.


With that blip out of the way Woody's trial continued and the Manitoba Queen's Bench docket shows that he was convicted of income tax evasion on Feb. 11, 2016 and sentenced on May 11, 2016. He received a conditional sentence order - the duration is not reported. Woody appealed. The Crown sought to have the CSO set aside so that Langford would go to remand, pre-trial. That was refused. The appeal hearing is scheduled for April 27, 2018.

His wife didn't wait for his conviction before bailing. She sought divorce on Nov. 5, 2015 (one month before the cited decision was released) and got it Nov. 7, 2016.

Woody is now 72, divorced, owes a massive debt to the CRA, and has a criminal conviction for tax evasion which will almost certainly mean the end of his days as a lawyer. So I think he might be having some difficulty adhering to the philosophy he espouses at the end of his bio;

Woody says "I try to enjoy life everyday and to get out of bed with a smile on my face."


But, then again, I can't sympathize too much with someone who publishes an online bio using Comic Sans for his font.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6578
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Woody Langford - Detaxer Lawyer and Tax Evader

Postby The Observer » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:10 am

And how long before Woody goes in search of equally imbecilic methods to detax himself? Please don't tell me Woody is going to give up after the first stomping.

Burnaby49 wrote:Since the issue is indeed res juricata the court could have just phoned this one in by relying on precedence. Instead the judge did a detailed analysis of the arguments behind Woody's Notice of Constitutional Question.


Seems to be the Canadian judicial equivalent of pulling wings off flies. After all, most of your justices now just rely on swatting plaintiffs with a copy of the Meads v. Meads decision over their heads when appropriate.

And, of course, the knee in the groin;


Ah, I see now - just prolonging the agony to get another swing in. From what I can see, the Canadian justice system seems to be based on sadism.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Woody Langford - Detaxer Lawyer and Tax Evader

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:23 am

Old Woody was relying on Detaxer theories from the late 1990's when the Detax movement actually had some rigour and scholarship. It was all wrong of course but they did pool resources, discuss their losses, and consider alternatives. They were networked.

But that's all so last century and Woody is even older than I am so I doubt he's going to come up with something new and shiny. It doesn't matter anyhow. He's been convicted, I can't see him winning on appeal, and his future income potential seems somewhat limited.

Ah, I see now - just prolonging the agony to get another swing in. From what I can see, the Canadian justice system seems to be based on sadism.


Not at all! The judge is just giving Woody some respect by taking his arguments seriously rather than blowing him off with precedence. And, of course, a boot or two. That's how we learn.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6578
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Woody Langford - Detaxer Lawyer and Tax Evader

Postby The Observer » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:06 am

Burnaby49 wrote:Old Woody was relying on Detaxer theories from the late 1990's when the Detax movement actually had some rigour and scholarship. It was all wrong of course but they did pool resources, discuss their losses, and consider alternatives. They were networked.


Reminds me a bit of the tax protest movement in the '70s and early 80's. There was a lot of organizing going on, because a significant number of the membership were from the aerospace industry; a number of brainy engineers and rocket scientists thought they could find the secret detax code in the law. They were so well organized that they had clubs, dues, symposiums, forums, and the like to recruit more people and to keep the movement going.

One of the "clubs" even went so far to purchase real property for a place for the membership to meet; it doubled also as a place for the members to hide their liquid assets from the arm of the government (the club was trying to hold itself out as a non-profit organization). But it was all for nought, since, predictably, the government just picked off the members one by one, with the weakest falling first. By the time the mid-80's rolled around, there was no real reason to have those symposiums since most of the membership stopped attending and paying dues (wage levies really put a crimp on that revenue source) and not a few ended up with stiff court fines and/or sentences. Even the clubhouse was not sacrosanct as the government, in a move that would make your violent Canadian justices wince, grabbed it in under nominee lien theory and sold it to pay off some of the back taxes. At the end, there was one die-hard member left, some unemployed electrical engineer (it was a bad time to be an engineer, let alone an engineer that was slapping the hand that fed his boss' company) who had to admit that the movement had taken a shellacking. Not that it was going to stop him, mind you, but he at least recognized it was going to be a lonely fight.

But then the 80's and 90's kicked in and we got round 2 with people like Irwin Schiff, John Kotamir, Otto Skinner, Dan Meador, etc.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Woody Langford - Detaxer Lawyer and Tax Evader

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:57 am

Somewhat the same as the Canadian story. A group of individuals loosely affiliated into "study groups", comings and going but with a core of obsessives like Eldon Warman and Byron Fox. Link below to a classic Detax discussion about a case;

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/can.taxes/BtoO4qYUr8E

But, when they had wins, they were like that one, facts specific without general application. So it all just eventually died out as losses mounted without them findig that magic answer. Woody is really just a vestigal hangover from that period.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10624
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Woody Langford - Detaxer Lawyer and Tax Evader

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:16 pm

In response to his comment about the Canadian Judicial System, I think collegially they more inclined to masochism, since they willing sit there and let these loons inflict this tripe and nonsense on them and let their dockets be cluttered beyond all management. It would seem that ACJ Rooke is the only one not so inclined.

I have to admit I found the comments on the start of the US movement interesting. I never heard anything about them. I really didn't become "aware" of any of the movements until Posse Comitatus reared its so very ugly head.

Now as to "Woody", I mean what kind of lawyer allows himself to be called "Woody", I ask you?

Is this tax denial thing something new with him, or has he been secretly a closet de-taxer all these years and just now threw caution to the winds and came out of his closet.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6578
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Woody Langford - Detaxer Lawyer and Tax Evader

Postby The Observer » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:56 pm

notorial dissent wrote:I have to admit I found the comments on the start of the US movement interesting. I never heard anything about them. I really didn't become "aware" of any of the movements until Posse Comitatus reared its so very ugly head.


I'm sorry if I implied that the 70's were the start of the tax protest movement in the US. It actually started earlier in the '50s with Arthur Porth who originated the claim about the 16th amendment putting people into involuntary servitude. Porth promoted his theory, even after being convicted, and the IRS classified returns coming in with the slavery claim or 5th Amendment claims (yes, he thought of that one as well) as "Porth Returns" There were a few others during the 60's but it was the '70s when the movement started ramping up.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10624
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Woody Langford - Detaxer Lawyer and Tax Evader

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:21 pm

No, I was just commenting that I wasn't aware of that end of it, I didn't start paying attention to it til much later.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest