The tyranny and oppression they referred to was, of course, the fact that the CRA wanted them to pay their back taxes. But the CRA chose to follow its slavish adherence to the Income Tax Act and upped the ante by garnisheeing their pensions and putting a lien on their house. Nazi bastards! So the Fazakas decided to fight back against this injustice by taking the CRA to court, an institution funded by the taxes they were determined not to pay.Canada is founded on the principles that recognize the supremacy of GOD or the CREATOR and the rule of law. The principles are laid out in the preambles of the Covenants and Declaration of Human Rights. The principles are inherent dignity, inalienable rights, freedom, liberty, JUSTICE, economic rights, freedom from want, slavery & servitude, natural wealth & resources, tyranny & oppression that we are facing.
Fazakas v. R,
2018 NBQB 12
http://canlii.ca/t/hpxk3
Here is the plaintive story of opression they related to the court in a document they called an Affidavit Of Truth.
The covenants they referred to, along with other statutory acts they relied on were;This affidavit is the truth to the best of our knowledge as it is covering many years.
After 911, We started to wake and wonder what everything was about. We started to question everything. We started to learn who we were and how this world works. We always hated doing our income taxes and started to question this subject. We didn’t want the paper work in our house. We saw it as complete evil. It was felt in our hearts.
We started to realize that Canada Revenue was a collection agency and they were contacting us and always needing to use the social insurance number and our all capitals name. We figured they were contracting with us. The more we researched this the more we found this to be true. We looked at the Canada Constitution 1867 and the Canada Constitution 1982. We found that the International Covenants was the reason that the Canada Constitution 1982 was made. We started filing our taxes by asking for all the tax we paid back. That is our contract. They refused. This went on for many years and we were getting nowhere with them. They would phone and ask for our name. They wanted us to admit we were this name. Then the mail started and this was breaking the criminal code C 46 Using the mails to defraud. They sent an enforcement officer to our house. We were not home but he went over our chained driveway to leave his card. It’s the farmer and his dog when a sheep gets away. My wife and I were being harassed by phone and mail. We also tried to get the RC.M.P. to investigate them for mail fraud but the RCMP said they don’t investigate Canada Revenue. We contacted the Attorney General of N.B. for his advise. We were learning and learning and one day my city of Hamilton pension people sent a requirement to pay from Canada Revenue and they were going to start a garnishment of 40 % March 1 2015 and they also started a lien on our house. They were still getting their tax from the pension, I couldn’t stop that but I did ask them to stop. The lien was stopped as we sent a contract called Offer to Pay upon Debt Validation to the person at Revenue Canada and also sent it to the land registration office. We also changed some paper work and made it out the way we wanted as it was probably a contract. The Offer To Pay was acquiescence to by the Canada Revenue person but it didn’t matter. They do what they want. They have since started a 40 % then a 90% garnishment on Jeannie’s pension from the province of Ontario. Jeannie worked for the courts and was the judges secretary for a while.
Now we realize more as they consider us an officer of Canada doing work for the crown. I found the International Covenants and there is no where in the Covenants where the state party can take our money and put us into servitude. Canada Revenue Agency are violating our rights and freedoms and we need remedy.
In other words the usual meaningless touchy-feely United Nations fluff that all sovereigns seem to find so compelling but which the courts totally ignore since they are not actually binding laws in Canada.1 THE CANADA CONSTITUTION 1982
2 THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
3 THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
4 THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
5 DECLARATION ON THE RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS AND ORGANS OF SOCIETY TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
6 THE LIVE AUTHENTICATED BIRTH CERTIFICATES
The only way that they could be made whole again after all their suffering was through their request for relief;
Modest, I think, given the indignities they'd endured. I won't go through their 'legal' arguments in detail. They are extensive and repetitive. Read them yourselves if interested. But a sample in respect to their interpretation of one of the laws they relied on to give you a general idea of their arguments;THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS:
1. An order allowing the application and granting the return of all garnishment moneys from the CRA and stop forever more paying of income taxes.
2. An order to stop the CRA from contacting us forever more.
3. Compensation for years of stress, harassment, and anxiety, office supplies, and postage, to be ruled on by the Judge.
We have written to the Minister of Revenue Diane Lebouhillier about our concerns and listed all our rights and freedoms in the Canada Constitution of 1982 and the International Covenants and she has responded with sarcasm, indignity, and stated that our inalienable rights and freedoms are merely ‘freeman on the land’ theories.
The state party has violated almost all the articles in International Law, they have violated all their obligations to us as we are a natural man and woman. The state party is de facto as stated in article 15 of the criminal code. The currency is fiat made out of nothing as Canada has sold or gave away all their gold so this is strictly about servitude and power. Nothing more, nothing less. Corporations, all corporations. Only a living man or woman can have liberty. Living man and woman like us with our authenticated real live birth certificates. We are not lost at sea. Supreme Court rulings have said many times the charter has to be fitted in to the legislature and acts and statutes.
Jeannie has written to the prime minister asking if the state party honours the constitution 1982 and international law. After 5 or 6 letters a reply came back from a manager stating her letter was sent to the foreign minister Dion. Never heard from him either.
In the Supreme Court ruling Thompson vs Minister of National Revenue 1946 CanLII 1 (SCC), 1946 SCR 209 said residents are taxed not Canadians but residents within the act. Resident means working for the corporation of Canada.
In the census act resident means a fiction, artificial person, a corporation, a place where a corporation does business. Canada is not the land mass but the corporation of Canada. All words for fraud and deceit.
Canada Constitution 1982
Article 2 (D) freedom of association.
We don’t have to associate with Canada Revenue, it's our right
we bought a stamp that says [ unknown at this address return to sender] just for revenue canada.
Article 7.. everyone [man and woman] has the right to life and liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental [basic] justice.
our liberty has been stripped from us as we have no freedom, only a man or woman can have liberty, not a corporation
Article 26..the guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
This is where the International Covenants flow through.
Article 52. the Constitution of Canada is the Supreme Law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is to the extent of the inconsistency of no force or effect.
The Income Tax Act puts us in slavery and servitude and is no force or effect. It cannot be presumed that it doesn’t. It’s a fact. It cannot be argued.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
-preamble inalienable rights, rights that can’t be taken away
rights were taken away by Canada Revenue
-inherent dignity of the human person
-freedom from fear and want
all we have is fear and want.
-enjoy his economic social and cultural rights
we have no enjoyment as we are stripped of our pensions.
-article 1 freely pursue economic development
we can’t pursue our economic development when our pensions are stolen.
-article 2 all peoples may for their own ends freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation based upon the principle of mutual benefit and international law. In NO case may a people be deprived of it’s own means of subsistence.
we are being deprived of our pensions
article 3 enjoyment of all economic rights
no enjoyment.. zero
article 5 nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any state party, group, or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
state party has violated our rights and freedoms by stealing our subsistence.
article 7 (ii) a decent living for themselves and their families
no decent living for us for years now, only stress. Haven’t been able to visit our family in Hamilton ON like we should be able to because of the cost.
article 9 right to social security including social insurance
article 11 right for everyone a adequate standard of living for himself and his family
our standard of living has decreased as we are driving a 11 year old truck and have a hard time replacing things that break.
article 12 right of everyone of the enjoyment of the highest standard of physical and mental health.
Canada Revenue has created terrible stress on us and many, many sleepless nights and anxiety, not knowing how we will pay for things we need. Our retirement has been ruined.
article 25 NOTHING in the present shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize and fully and freely their natural wealth and resources.
we haven’t enjoyed our wealth and resources as they were stolen from us 40 % from Brian’s pension and 90 %from Jeannie’s.
So, how did they fare with this heart-rending story? First the judge commented on what he thought about their gibberish;
Then their application was dismissed in a paragraph![4] In addition, there is a document called Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right, provided by a “Brian Mark: of the family Fazakas, a flesh and blood Divine Sovereign Man, serving the Creator alone do hereby make oath and state the following is My Truth and My Law.” By in large, it is an argument that Mr. Mark and the Fazakas are not subject to the laws of Canada and can do what they want and how they want. I do not intend to reproduce his comments, but I have dealt with others of similar beliefs. I do not accept the position advanced by Mr. Mark. He is not above the laws of Canada nor are the Fazakas.
Jurisdiction? What kind of bureaucratic bullshit is that? The Fazakas wanted justice, not petty judicial nitpicking. So, fine, after that rebuff they went to Federal Court for justice but instead of a sympathetic ear they got a judicial shitkicking. As blunt a decison as I've read.APPLYING THE LAW TO THIS ISSUE
[15] As I read the legislation, in particular section 18 of the Federal Court Act and authorities presented to the Court, one can come to no other conclusion than this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the remedies requested by the Applicants. The Federal Government has legislated a system which is designed to handle the types of matters contained in the application now before this Court. The legislation setting up those procedures and courts clearly removed the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick from the process by putting, in unequivocal terms, all the jurisdiction solely with the Federal Court.
DISPOSITION
[16] Consequently, I must dismiss the Applicants’ proceeding now before this Court.
Fazakas v. Canada
2018 FC 364
http://canlii.ca/t/hszzn
This is the decision in its entirety;
[1] I do not need to hear from counsel for the Minister in reply. I am going to dispense with this matter now by oral reasons.
[2] This is a motion to strike the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim in its entirety without leave to amend. The motion is brought under Federal Courts Rule 221, which provides for a claim to be struck where it discloses no reasonable cause of action or where the claim is legally frivolous or vexatious.
[3] The burden on a motion like this one rests with the Minister, who must satisfy me that it is plain and obvious that the claim, as written, discloses no reasonable cause of action.
[4] The Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim asserts no material facts and no legal theory or cause of action known in the law. It states only that the Plaintiffs' pensions are being garnisheed, presumably for unpaid taxes, and that they, the Plaintiffs, have been forced into servitude, making them officers of Canada with their residence in their corporate body, Canada: "They took us out of our whole legal capacity as man and woman." This, of course, is legal and factual nonsense. There is nothing here that the Crown can answer with a meaningful defence.
[5] The remaining allegation of constitutional invalidity fails to stipulate any legal basis for the claim. In the absence of particulars and in the face of a hundred years of jurisprudence upholding the income tax obligations of all Canadians, this assertion is also legally untenable and unsustainable. The idea that some Canadians, can by personal fiat, simply opt out of their legal obligations while claiming the benefits of the taxation paid by other Canadians is legally untenable.
[6] I would add that this claim bears all of the hallmarks of an "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument". These types of claims are brought before the courts of Canada with increasing frequency and at considerable expense to Canadians who do pay their taxes. At the same time, the courts are striking out these claims because they are abusive of the judicial system and a waste of resources.
[7] I have no hesitation in striking out this claim in its entirety without leave to amend. It is frivolous, it is vexatious, and it is devoid of any legal merit.
[8] Costs are payable forthwith by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant in the amount of $750.00.
[9] So that disposes of the motion, the Minister's motion to strike the claim in its entirety. I have allowed that motion with costs.
[10] I am not sure what the Plaintiffs' motion is all about, but regardless, there is no legal basis to consider the Plaintiffs' purported motion to state a constitutional question. It isn't at all clear from the motion materials filed what was being asked of the Court, but in light of the dismissal of the action, that motion, such as it is, is now moot, and it, too, is dismissed but without costs.
[11] That disposes of those two matters before the Court.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Defendant’s motion to strike the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim without leave to amend is granted with costs payable to the Defendant in the amount of $750.00 payable forthwith.
THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the Plaintiffs’ motion is dismissed without costs.
You'll note that the Fazakas case included a motion about something that the judge couldn't even understand but instead of bothering to figure it out he just dismissed it as worthless garbage. I guess it's back to being slaves for the Fazakas.
