Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 27-02-2012, 02:36 AM   #81
syawedis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 366
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aulus agerius View Post
Hard to say, without knowing the terms of the settlement. And hardly without proof, since we have been able to establish that the law suit existed and was not struck out, and the settlement was reported publicly. I've yet to see a Freeman case with as much proof.
So there is proof that there was a lawsuit, as in, there are records of that court case? Also, CRA was the defendant, correct? That would probably mean the settlement out of court was Not in favor of CRA? I find this case interesting, would be cool to see some actual court documents of what went down.
__________________
It's unacceptable, just accept it.

For anyone who feels beat down by the system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA

I can't stop watching
syawedis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-02-2012, 03:20 PM   #82
aulus agerius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syawedis View Post
So there is proof that there was a lawsuit, as in, there are records of that court case? Also, CRA was the defendant, correct? That would probably mean the settlement out of court was Not in favor of CRA? I find this case interesting, would be cool to see some actual court documents of what went down.
The CRA was the defendant, there are clearly court records - the judgments on Canlii. The reports indicate that the settlement involved CRA withdrawing it's requests for information about overseas assets. We don't know if money changed hands, we don't know what position was taken on costs. Deducing anything from out of court settlements is a bit dicey, but it seems likely that CRA thought that there was a substantial risk of loosing on at least some of the issues, so decided not to test its luck.

Whether you can find pleadings, affidavits etc, I don't know - I'm not Canadian - you're as likely to find things through Google as I am. Maybe you can get hold of documents from the court that heard the case.
aulus agerius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-02-2012, 08:13 PM   #83
syawedis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 366
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aulus agerius View Post
The CRA was the defendant, there are clearly court records - the judgments on Canlii. The reports indicate that the settlement involved CRA withdrawing it's requests for information about overseas assets. We don't know if money changed hands, we don't know what position was taken on costs. Deducing anything from out of court settlements is a bit dicey, but it seems likely that CRA thought that there was a substantial risk of loosing on at least some of the issues, so decided not to test its luck.

Whether you can find pleadings, affidavits etc, I don't know - I'm not Canadian - you're as likely to find things through Google as I am. Maybe you can get hold of documents from the court that heard the case.
So are those 'Airth' cases that solz linked to on Canlii all from the same court case? The one I'm talking about? They really don't say much about what was actually said in the court room, or why CRA had 'substansial risk of losing'. It's still very unclear. Maybe someone who knows their way around that site can point me in the right direction? I think going to the actual court for the records is a bit ridiculous. I mean, I've seen a number of direct links posted to losing court cases, with detailed information. Why should this be any different? Are all 'victories' settled out of court with little to no 'proof' of what actually happened? Does anyone know the court number for this particular case?

In the article I read it says; "The grounds for the proposed Class Action against the Canadian Minister of National Revenue include fraud, discrimination, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, breach of trust, breach of privacy, negligence, breech of confidential relationship, invasion of privacy, arbitrary targeting of taxpayers and abuse of power." and I'm curious how those issues were brought up in court, because I can relate to a lot of that from my own dealings with CRA.
__________________
It's unacceptable, just accept it.

For anyone who feels beat down by the system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA

I can't stop watching
syawedis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-02-2012, 08:39 PM   #84
aulus agerius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syawedis View Post
So are those 'Airth' cases that solz linked to on Canlii all from the same court case? The one I'm talking about? They really don't say much about what was actually said in the court room, or why CRA had 'substansial risk of losing'. It's still very unclear. Maybe someone who knows their way around that site can point me in the right direction? I think going to the actual court for the records is a bit ridiculous. I mean, I've seen a number of direct links posted to losing court cases, with detailed information. Why should this be any different? Are all 'victories' settled out of court with little to no 'proof' of what actually happened? Does anyone know the court number for this particular case?
So far as I can tell all but the 1990s case linked to are the same matter. The reason the judgments are not full and detailed is because they are just decisions about proceedural matters. There is no judgment because the case was settled prior to the "trial". Freemen never seems to settle before trial, therefore their failures are the subject of judgments. As I have said, there is not even this level of proof for freeman successes. You must understand that the settlement in this case was not a freeman style "well they dropped the charges" business, but an agreement between the Hell's Angels and the CRA not to go to trial, on specified terms. The only thing we know of those terms is that they included the CRA withdrawing its requests for information.

Quote:
In the article I read it says; "The grounds for the proposed Class Action against the Canadian Minister of National Revenue include fraud, discrimination, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, breach of trust, breach of privacy, negligence, breech of confidential relationship, invasion of privacy, arbitrary targeting of taxpayers and abuse of power." and I'm curious how those issues were brought up in court, because I can relate to a lot of that from my own dealings with CRA.
As I understand it, the "proposed Class Action" is not the same as the Airth case - it's something else. Unless you know of that proposed action actually having been commenced, then it just remained "proposed".

Last edited by aulus agerius; 27-02-2012 at 08:39 PM. Reason: fixing tags
aulus agerius is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.