Categorized | Call of Shame, Video

Another Callous Criminal at the Canadian Revenue Agency

Posted on January 29th, 2016 by Marc Stevens

If you’ve never spoken with someone who exhibits psychopathic behavior, such as a complete lack of empathy, then speak to a bureaucrat.  They are a callous bunch of criminals.  While I don’t believe they are all psychopaths/sociopaths, they certainly behave in a similar way, they just don’t give a damn, they really just don’t care.

This call is with Carol, she is the one behind the attack.  She doesn’t break any ground, nothing new, she uses all the same lines we’ve come to expect.  So this may be educational for those new to this site, it is also more evidence these people are callous criminals deserving of neither respect nor compliance.

cra-pict copy

She insists the rules created by people called “legislators” apply to Keith because he’s physically in Canada, but when asked for proof she can only repeat her claim.  She claims the proof is the income information.  So I have her confirm this, then ask how the reported income proves their laws apply.  She responds with:

I’m not going to get into any detax arguments with you.

And there is your evidence of Carol’s dishonesty.  She lies that I’m argument with here when I only asked her to prove her claim.  I point out I’m not arguing and she states she is not going to answer my questions.  Keep in mind I only asked for the proof she said she had.  That is evidence of not only dishonesty but of bad faith.

I ask a few more times after pointing out she is not answering and the sum of her claim the law apply is really nothing more than her saying:

They do.

Carol is unable to demonstrate how the income report proves the laws apply and she knows she can’t.  If she could, then she would have given the proof.  She then defaults to the standard line to divert attention by claiming my asking for evidence is a “debate.”  This is dishonest to say the least.  Her supervisor is conflicted though.

When I spoke to her supervisor, Ron, he’s just as callous.  He makes the claim,  “I don’t need evidence.”  When I tell him I need to write that down, he gets upset and asked if I was recording.  I tell him I’m writing his admissions down, but I can understand why he doesn’t want such admissions recorded.  [The picture below is not Ron, it’s Joe Oliver, the head of the Canadian Revenue Agency, the Minister of Finance.  I don’t doubt Joe would also say evidence is not required.]


I asked him if he thought is was dishonest to claim a question of evidence was a debate and he said it was dishonest.  So I asked him if it was dishonest when Carol did it to me.  He said no, it was not.  Nice contradiction Ron, what a way to remove any doubt you are a callous, dishonest criminal.

He lied about having his supervisor call also.  But you can’t expect anything less from people who force us to pay them.



12 Comments For This Post

  1. Rad Says:

    It’s a faith-based belief, not an evidence-based conclusion.

  2. Andy Says:

    Argument: information on the tax return is evidence the laws of Canada apply and have jurisdiction.

    Then would you agree that a person who has no income nor tax return then your laws don’t apply and Canada doesn’t have jurisdiction? There’s a lot people in Canada that aren’t required to file tax returns and thus your laws don’t apply to them; foreign visitors to Canada is an obvious example that your laws don’t apply to them; do you want to stick with your original argument that information on a tax return proves your laws apply and have jurisdiction?

    I noticed how she changed her argument from information on a tax return to, “is he a resident?” Are foreign visitors residents?

    @ Marc, a dialog like that may be of value to listeners to hear how ridiculous their argument is: information on a tax return or residency. She can say those are evidence but they’re just more arguments.

  3. damon Says:

    I did not listen but noting Andy’s comment.

    She asked if he was a resident? Huh, imagine that. I think I have said a thing or two here about that status that most people here probably claim.

    I would also say that the information return is evidence of “taxpayer” status.

    We go right back to club membership. He is a member of the club, has and uses a benefit recipient number called a social insurance number in Canada. SIN for short…

    He fills out tax forms, has a drivers license and quite possibly at some point in his life has taken benefits that were offered at his neighbors expense. Public school for his children, medical care, food stamps, retirement benefits? Anyone of those that comes through the tax everyone here claims they steal, which I remind you makes you a thief as well if you take and ask benefits from the ones you claim are thieves and steal from you

    My question would then become , why should he not pay the tribute to the strange gods he has agreed to serve?

    Oh cause its easier to blame them for your own sloth and covetous just like it is easier to go to the same people you claim stole it from you then ask them for welfare who took it from your neighbor…

    that sounds like a hypocrite to me. And again he should be under tribute to the gods he has chosen.

  4. Andy Says:

    Hundreds, (thousands?) of “government” types have confirmed their argument is that when a person is physically located in Utah, for example, their laws apply and they have jurisdiction. No voluntaryist that I know refers to himself or herself a resident. Resident is statism lingo, legalese.

  5. Andy Says:

    What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
    The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte

  6. Pete Says:

    @Andy: What’s the difference between and all other websites? All other websites don’t have Andy and NonE clogging up the comment sections with lame attempts at humor.

  7. Steven Says:

    “Ron accused Marc of continually violating an “international treaty.”

    I think Ron is going from this treaty.

    Does America Have to Follow International Laws? –

    Attorneys often experience a passionate client coming into their office and insisting that they have a case based on something they read about happening in another country. In other instances, people will invoke rights they believe they have under treaties or international agreements like the Geneva Convention. Thus, many wonder whether American courts must follow international laws?

  8. Andy Says:

    @Pete, My humor to non humor ratio of comments is about ten to one. Most of my posts are not supposed to be funny. I do sometimes include humor in a serous post. NonEntity can speak for himself. I think his non humor posts are valuable. I don’t always get his humor. Here are links to my two most recent posts to the forum:

    BTW, neither of my two above/earlier comments are humor nor intended to be humor. Your comment is unsubstantiated. If you think they were lame attempts at humor then clearly you aren’t “my” audience.

  9. dan Says:

    consider this in reference to the thesis that Damon presents;

    has the government made it clear to you that you have a choice to not have a drivers’ license, or file a tax return, or that if you partake of any benefits provided by government, you are volunteering into a contract with them? have they clearly stated that their laws only apply to those with whom they have a contract, and part of a contract is the requirement for full disclosure?

    if they have any hidden facts about the situation that they don’t disclose in order to collect money from you, aren’t they committing fraud?

    speaking of fraud, if you haven’t seen this expose on canada’s monetary system, you will see that the government’s of canada and the u.s. are serving masters who are not the people, but the oligarchs that own the monetary systems of the nations of earth.

  10. Andy Says:

    @Calvin or Marc, the two links to forum threads in my post are in limbo waiting your approval.

  11. Andy Says:

    This is a repost of a post made on January 31 that is awaiting moderation because it had two links in it. Links to the forum, no less. Oh well, I’ve removed the links from this post.

    @Pete, My humor to non humor ratio of comments is about ten to one. Most of my posts are not supposed to be funny. I do sometimes include humor in a serous post. NonEntity can speak for himself. I think his non humor posts are valuable. I don’t always get his humor. Here are links to my two most recent posts to the forum: linked removed.
    and, link removed.

    BTW, neither of my two above/earlier comments are humor nor intended to be humor. Your comment is unsubstantiated. If you think they were lame attempts at humor then clearly you aren’t “my” audience.

  12. damon Says:

    @ Dan

    They have given you “full disclosure”. Motor Vehicle code is “full disclosure. People are just to lazy to read it.

    Title 42 is the social security act, and is “public notice” for ALL to see and read what is being given up in turn for benefits that come at your neighbors expense. People are to slothful to read this. this too is “full disclosure”.

    Title 26 is the internal revenue code. This is also “public notice” available for ALL to see and read and is “full disclosure”. People are to slothful to read this as well.

    Granted they use some pretty deceptive language and like to tuck the terms near the end of the “code”. None the less,

    you are charged with knowledge of the law and cannot claim ignorance of it. They have “plausible deniability” mate. They have made it public for ALL to see and read so one cannot turn and say “fraud”. If you think it is “fraud” then quit using the benefits and slave surveillance number.

    What you are not realizing Dan is that it is your neighbor attempting to be the tyrant over you. They seek to compel you to offer sacrifices (tax/tribute) to contribute to their welfare through the agency of authoritarian benefactors that promise them liberty. Your neighbor is the responsible party to this. The people are the guilty ones.

    Moreover Dan, if you would like answers, then write the appropriate peoples in that government and ask some of the hard questions. If they refuse to answer, which is likely to keep that cat in that bag, then you have the option of ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION VIA TACIT PROCURATION. There silence is actually your best weapon. One can put another in a default judgment BEFORE ever entering a court room. This is there so as to REMOVE any controversy as it is the adult thing to do. You can actually answer the questions for them that you ask stating that they agree to the answers within a certain sum of days (usually 10 I think) and that you are giving them an opportunity to voice what they do not agree with. If they say nothing it means they agree, he who is silent appears to consent and he who does not deny, admits. This is an extremely powerful tool that many do not take advantage of. There are excellent examples of DEAFULT JUDGMENTS online.

    @ Andy

    If they have a drivers license then they claim to be a “resident”. If they play the lotto, then they claim to be residents as you often hear that “residency restrictions apply”. If they hunt and by the license as a “resident” because it is way cheaper than the non-resident license then they claim to be resident.

    Most importantly, if they take benefits that came at the expense of their neighbor then they are in no way a “voluntaryist” but are in fact deceived and a hypocrite.

    If anyone wants to see “end game” of socialism, go to any major city to he projects. This is where you will find what happens to a lazy, slothful, and covetous people who do not care if they force you to pay for their welfare by asking others to take it from you.

    Eventually it collapses, and if that national debt is any indicator the time is not far off and many will suffer horribly as the checks run out and the government become more rash in how it confiscates the loot to attempt to stay “above water” because the people will demand it. Usually a dictatorship follows. You can see the beginnings of this with the “executive orders” being issued. It is a fancy word for a “dictators statement”.

    People have to repent and “go the other way”.

2 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Jan 30, 2016 - Says:

    […] Ron accused Marc of continually violating an “international treaty.” […]

  2. Defeating a Silly Political Tactic - Evidence Against the Canadian Revenue Agency - Says:

    […] not registered?  Remember, it’s not about evidence, it’s about prisons.  The CRA, probably Carol, did the registration […]

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