Categorized | Call of Shame

#CoS – Apr 15, 2013 – A Good Example of Countering Non-responsiveness with the Canadian Revenue Agency

Posted on April 20th, 2013 by Calvin

Within bureaucracy, a malicious normalcy bias can easily develop. This systematic conditioning eventually leads to a frustrating ether of cognitive dissonance when confronted with questions of facts and evidence.  This cognitive dissonance is heard in the form of non-responsive replies to some very simple and straightforward questions.  It is of the utmost importance that you are proficient in countering non-responsiveness during litigation to most successfully exercise effective damage control. Lets track the various non-responsive replies to questions of evidence put to an agent at the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA):

  1. To start the call off, Marc explains that when he initially asked a lower agent at the CRA about whether there was any evidence that the laws and Acts applied to his client and that there was jurisdiction, she non-responsively replies with “Why wouldn’t the acts apply?”
  2. After explaining that there is “no empirical proof” that the code applies, Marc restates that there is “no empirical proof and no witnesses with personal firsthand knowledge that the code applies” to which she non-responsively replies with “in our administration of the law, Mr. ___ is required to file a tax return.”
  3. After pointing out that her statement is the “prevailing opinion” that we’ve heard so many times before, Marc adds “but we don’t believe there is any evidence to back that up,” to which she again non-responsively relies with “I would just ask why he wouldn’t have to file a return?”
  4. After pointing out that’s the wrong question, Marc brings her back with “What evidence do you have that the Acts apply and that there’s jurisdiction and that he’s required to file anything?” She, non-responsively, goes right back to her question of “Why would he NOT have to?”
  5. At this point Marc finds it useful to remind her that the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation(s) and re-asks “Is there any empirical proof that the Acts actually apply to him” and that her “agency has jurisdiction over him?” She goes right back to the non-responsive circular logic that “Canadians are required to file tax returns,” again referring to the law [<-legal opinion, not fact] to demonstrate factual applicability of the law.
  6. Marc comes back with “Beyond your say-so, I am asking for empirical proof of that. We don’t see there is any actual evidence to back that [legal opinion] up.” Instead of just clearing the fog and answering the question she non-responsively replies with “That’s for the courts to decide.”
  7. Coming back to the matter at hand, instead of falling into her trap of putting the question off for court, Marc asks “Can you confirm there is empirical proof right now?” And without pausing for thought, she non-responsively fires back with “Under the Income Tax Act [legal opinion], under section 150, there is a requirement to file an income tax return.”
  8. Right after she cites law [legal opinion] in response to a question of existence of evidence, Marc goes right back to “Okay, but can you confirm, at this point in time, there is actually evidence to support that [legal opinion]? and he ups the ante by explaining “If you cannot confirm there is evidence at this particular point in time, and you continue going after my client, when it does get to court, we will raise the issue of misconduct and gross dishonesty because you are knowingly bringing an issue against my client knowing that there is no evidence [and witnesses with personal firsthand knowledge the code applies].” She again non-responsively replies “Your client is required to file a return. If we do go to court, certainly that is something you can bring up and it will be interpreted at that time.”
  9. After explaining “its not a matter of interpretation,” Marc goes right back to square-one; “What we want to know right now can you confirm right now, yes or no, that there is empirical proof that the Acts apply and that there is jurisdiction?” Again she goes back to the code when she non-responsively replies with “We are going by our policy and what we are required to administer” and goes back to the “interpretation of the Act.”
  10. After pointing out that he never asked her about the “interpretation of the Act,” Marc restates “I am asking for empirical proof it [the code] applies to Mr. ___ in the first place” and requests she “stops conflating application with interpretation” and he re-asks “Do you have any evidence, any empirical proof whatsoever, that the Acts actually apply to Mr. ___?” After her first thoughtful pause of the call, she finally responds with the admission to answer his question of existence of facts and evidence, she’ll “have to look into the case further.”
  11. Acknowledging her reasonable response, Marc tells her “If you want to get back to me, that’s certainly reasonable and I am glad to hear…” until she interrupts with the backdoor-line “I can look into it, but I am not in the position to make that determination at this point in time.”
  12. Marc seeks clarification by asking her “Are you able to look into whether there is empirical proof that the Acts apply and that there’s jurisdiction? Certainly you’re not going to proceed against Mr. ___ without evidence of jurisdiction, right?” To which she non-responsively replies with “Is he a resident of Canada?”
  13. After reminding the agent that her question is not an answer to his question of existence of evidence and in the middle of asking if they plan to proceed with their legal attack against Mr. ___ absent evidence of applicability, she interrupts and non-responsively complains “Why aren’t my questions being answered?”
  14. Marc answers her complaint stating “Because I am asking you a question [of evidence] and you just want to evade the answer to that question and deflect the attention away.” She uses the same reason as Marc for asking questions by claiming she is “just seeking clarification.” Remember: you are not there to submit testimony, you are only there to question the evidence.
  15. Marc attempts to paint the picture a little clearer for the CRA agent and states “We have a letter that went to Mr. ___ and *someone* down there has already made these determinations. I want to know if its arbitrary or if its based on facts. I am not going to fill in the gaps for you, I am not going to sit here on the phone and make a case against someone I am assisting. Do you, or do you not, have empirical proof that the Acts apply to Mr. ___?” She again non-responsively stonewalls and says “Well, I’m not going to discuss those sort of things with you either sir.” [“Either?” There has only been one issue/question pursued by Marc and his client, what other things is she imagining Marc to be asking? More evidence that statism resides in an ether of cognitive dissonance.]
  16. Keeping in mind this is a phone call to determine whether there is evidence to warrant the case to be escalated to the courts, Marc restates her latest admission that she is not going to discuss “whether they have evidence or not” and promptly reminds her that “withholding material evidence” is considered “perverting the course of justice.” She attempts to dodge accountability by claiming that is only applicable in a court of law” and that Marc “can argue what he wants.”
  17. After suggesting that “perverting the course of justice” is not limited exclusively to appearances before the court and that asking questions to determine whether there is any evidence to support the charges is not making an argument, Marc begins to get into her admission that she “is not in a position to determine applicability/jurisdiction” when she interrupts with “I am not sure I can determine that at this point in time” and “if you are asking for a determination that is legal, I can’t give you that.”
  18. In response, Marc has to reiterate that asking for “empirical proof the Acts apply has nothing to do with interpretation, and if you’re not a lawyer and not able to make these determinations then you’re really in no position to determine that my client is required to file a return.” The CRA agent non-responsively and evasively continues the non-responsiveness by claiming that “if we go ahead then that would be something that would be argued in front of the court.”
  19. In accordance with standard procedure for discovery, Marc replies “Before going to court, I want a yes or no answer, and not an evasion, because if you can’t confirm there’s evidence or not, then we’ve got a serious issue of bad faith where you’re proceeding against Mr. ___ without evidence of jurisdiction.” She callously, and non-responsively replies with “Well, as I said; then Mr. ___ would have an option in that point in time to appeal it.” As if that is a valid replacement for an incomplete discovery. :-/
  20. Marc takes his que to ask “Why should he have to do that [get railroaded and file for an appeal] when at this particular time neither you or anyone else at the CRA can confirm there is evidence of jurisdiction? Why not just drop it if you can’t confirm if there’s evidence of jurisdiction?” A bit of quasi-rationality returns when she says “That would have to be something we have to look into and see, and that would be something your client would have to potentially fight at the end if we feel we have that [jurisdiction], then that’s how it would go.”
  21. Marc closes with “If you feel you have evidence, then I would imagine you can get beyond your feelings and you can actually demonstrate and present what that empirical proof is. And if you are not able to present empirical proof, then regardless of your feeling, I would hope that you would back off at least until such a time you can prove jurisdiction.” She responds with the non-responsivevague statement “I will have to look into it and see, that’s all I can tell you sir.”

That’s a lot of non-responsiveness for a 9 minute inquiry. Do you see the pattern of non-responsiveness and cognitive dissonance with simple questions of proof of facts and evidence? Imagine attempting to have this nature of conversation within other domains of your life… with friends, family, co-workers; how productive and coherent would that conversation be? These folks staffing the Tax/Revenue agencies have no value for productiveness, coherency, and most importantly; consistency, yet they are ready and willing to destroy their neighbor’s lives to feel like they are doing a good job blindly conforming to assumed authority. That level of destruction has social cost for services that can, and should, be provided voluntarily.

This unnecessary infection of cognitive dissonance is avoidable outside the fictitious paradigm of statism (or “assumed roles,” to use the language of the Stanford Prison experiment), and why we produce a weekly radio show; to contribute to the case for a voluntary society in objection to the violent society uniformly forced upon us today, a society where we don’t have to rely on a underlying ether of ignorance as a matter of sanctioned social policy.

In the spirit of Bill O’Reilly, we’ll leave you with Guitar Slim and a cut of his classic album, take it away.


22 Comments For This Post

  1. mike Says:


    As a Canadian, I have read many theories as to why the income tax is unconstitutional or does not apply to individuals etc and yours is by far the simplist…no opinions put forward to be rebutted…just the facts…love it

  2. Reece Says:

    Excellent defence marc

  3. Latimer the Cat Says:

    It’s odd that people just can’t seem to break their establishment programming. It’s almost like they go into a job/self preservation mode when they realize that the truth is contrary to their position.

  4. KeithOB Says:

    Thank you Marc for your help with the call to the CRA Canada Revenue Agency.Janet (top brass/manager for the CRA) did mention that she would look into it,but at this date we have not got a response.I am asking for empirical evidence that the code/act applies.I am questioning they’re REQUEST TO FILE for 2011.

    Thanks again Marc your a champ!!

  5. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ keith, thanks goobma, that call really tested our patience.

  6. Pete Says:

    I have listened to every known CALL OF SHAME countless times.

    I’ve darned-near memorized the Kimberly Clark call, and the misadventures of SI-on. I can identify which CALL OF SHAME I’m listening to just by the unique, sonorous fingerprint of the bureaucrat’s telephonic hang-up “click.”

    I’ve hit the refresh button on my browser, late at night, eyes bloodshot and drowsy, hoping for that rare, one-in-a-million three-a.m. CALL OF SHAME upload by Calvin at the CALL OF SHAME headquarters.

    But this…this is choice.

    This is the master at his prime. This is the CALL OF SHAME counterpart to Musashi’s Five Rings. This is the CALL OF SHAME equivalent of Chinese ping-pong champion Wang Hao.



  7. Incubus Says:

    Pete, go to bed!

    Don’t I hear your mother calling you?

  8. Mr william kevin mcnamara Says:

    hey marc…i called minnesota revenue tax collection office and talked to an aubrey on 4/19/13 for about 8 mins till she hung up on me …i was asking for evidence and facts to prove jurisdiction as i have heard you do so many times. of course this upset her and all i got was the normal non responsive answers…should i call back and see if i can get another person to resolve this or what…i havent filed taxes since 96 and they have a garnishment order on any income when im working (not working now ,but will be in may) hope you can answer so i can proceed.thanks marc…love your program. kevin

  9. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ william, yeah call back, make sure you keep track of the date/time you call and who you speak with. Keep notes on what they say, you can ask for a supervisor.

  10. william Says:

    thanks marc…will do and will keep you posted as to the results…thanks again…kevin

  11. Calvin Says:

    @Pete: 3:07am CST, this one’s for you. 😉 More to come soon.

  12. Chris Says:

    Very entertaining.
    I don’t see what this accomplishes??
    What is Marc trying to accomplish, knowing that all of his phone calls will end up like this? Mine always do, and so do my paperwork.
    This is what I consider beating your head against the wall.
    What is the object/goal of this kind of “interaction”?
    … Chris

  13. Andy Says:

    @Chris, Damage control. The hang ups are documented.

  14. noel brophy Says:

    marc thanks a million for all the great stuff you have posted on the Internet
    i am part of a group here in Ireland that are taking the banks to court on a plenary summons for home morgages .we started this group about six months ago and we have 900 claims against the banks. at this point the heigh courts in Dublin don’t know how to handle a group we are also challenging tv licence /parking tickets/tax of all question to you is can your templates help us here in Ireland with demurred etc. or would they have to be changed to irish law keep up the good work thanks noel

  15. dysgenic Says:

    I really like this call as well. At the beginning of the call, Marc says something along the lines of “we are requesting evidence that the acts apply and there is jurisdiction…” In my opinion, using the word ‘jurisdiction’ along with asking if the acts apply is the way to go in most situations. From experience it puts the person on the other side of the phone in a much more defensive position. I think the reason for this is that using the word ‘jurisdiction’ is an attack on the system’s credibility that most beaurocrats feel compelled to defend.

    It’s calls like this that give me hope. No way can this system survive if enough people hear things like this.

  16. Bev Bailey Says:

    For 12years I have advocated for the lawful application of the inclusion/deduction tax law. I am right. The Parliamentary Library, the Tax Court and the Federal Court of Canada agree, but CRA stonewalls by being totally non-responsive, including collections agents, Lori Miller, Chief of Appeals, the Taxpayers Ombudsman, and Gail Shea, the Minister of National Revenue.
    You have described so well how intentionally non- responsive they all are. And for what purpose? One can only guess.

  17. Paul Says:

    The government agents invariably fall back upon “Well, if you believe that, you can argue it in court,” or some such declaration.
    It might be effective to point out that the court is owned and operated by the same gang demanding the tax–their demand being simply based upon–their demand. Does that demand become more valid because one of their gang in a black robe will rubber-stamp it?
    And how about an individual’s own, personal, jurisdiction? I am surrounded by MY jurisdiction—that’s why you’re doing wrong to walk up to me and punch me in the nose. Within MY jurisdiction, the wishes (they call them “laws”) of strangers do not apply!!

  18. Paul Says:

    The constitution of my state, and probably most of them, indicates that all political power resides with the people, and is derived from them. The U.S. Constitution says about the same thing. The people trying to take other people’s money have sworn fidelity to these constitutions. Yet if we, possessed of the same political power as them, get together and write down our wishes (statute: the written will of the legislature–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition) the legislators would laugh at us. When they do it, we must give our obedience! Why? Why is the political power of the servants greater than that of the sovereigns who delegated it to them?

  19. Ryan Lara Says:

    What would be evidence would be prudent for the acts, law etc. to apply?
    A signed contract by both parties without coercion?
    IE landlord tenant contract where there is consideration by both parties.
    IE I contract a job out for some sort of consideration like $ or barter?

    Ordered the book on Amazon, waiting on it to come in. L

  20. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Ryan, being voluntary is a start.

  21. NonE Says:

    Ryan Lara Sed:
    What would be evidence would be prudent for the acts, law etc. to apply?
    A signed contract by both parties without coercion?
    “A signed contract by both parties without coercion” would be a voluntary agreement. A law, by definition, is not voluntary. “Law” is what one resorts to when one can’t achieve his ends peaceably. “Law,” in any rational way that I can parse it, is a criminal act. If I can convince you of the matter I put before you, why would I need to resort to force, or the threat of force?

    Just some thoughts spurred by your questions. – NonE

  22. KeithOB Says:

    It is NOT the matter of interpretation….

7 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. #CoS – Apr 15, 2013 – A Good Example of Countering Non-responsiveness with the Canadian Revenue Agency - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] post #CoS – Apr 15, 2013 – A Good Example of Countering Non-responsiveness with the Canadian … appeared first on […]

  2. NSP – Apr 20, 2013 – Co-host: JT - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Marc’s second appearance at the Tempe city counsel questioning the applicability of their code and new #CoS: A Good Example of Countering Non-responsiveness with the Canadian Revenue Agency. […]

  3. NSP - Apr 20, 2013 - Co-host: JT | Says:

    […] Marc’s second appearance at the Tempe city counsel questioning the applicability of their code and new #CoS: A Good Example of Countering Non-responsiveness with the Canadian Revenue Agency. […]

  4. NSP - Apr 27, 2013 - Guests: Fabrice & Helen | Says:

    […] Keith’s pending discovery of evidence that the code applies. […]

  5. NSP – Apr 27, 2013 – Guests: Fabrice & Helen - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Keith’s pending discovery of evidence that the code applies. […]

  6. Call of Shame/ | No State Project - Canada Says:

    […]                                                            Within bureaucracy, a malicious normalcy bias can easily develop. This systematic conditioning eventually leads to a frustrating ether of cognitive dissonance when confronted with questions of facts and evidence.                                                                                                                                           Scroll down for the audio to my phone call with Marc and the head of the CRA […]

  7. NSP - Apr 25, 2015 - Says:

    […] from Canada: more circular logic: “the code is the facts, […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here