The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/l/lockhart.joe/1998/lockhart.9803

From Wed Mar  4 19:26:16 EST 1998
Article: 217960 of can.politics
From: Joseph Lockhart 
Newsgroups: can.politics,wpg.politics
Subject: Do these groups speak for YOU?
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 22:41:58 -0800
Organization: MTS Internet Services
Lines: 1
Message-ID: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit)
Xref: can.politics:217960 wpg.politics:2458

From Wed Mar 25 21:43:14 EST 1998
Article: 223280 of can.politics
From: Joseph Lockhart 
Newsgroups: can.taxes,,can.politics,us.taxes,
Subject: Re: Federal Income Tax and GST Unconstitutional?: Call for Debate
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:39:39 -0800
Organization: MTS Internet Services
Lines: 275
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit)
Xref: can.taxes:10687 can.politics:223280 us.taxes:12806

Paul McKeever 

Paul McKeever, B.Sc.(Hons), M.A., LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
106 Stevenson Road South
Oshawa, Ontario
L1J 5M1

Tel: (905) 721-9772


Whether your sincerely asking for this ‘debate,' or your getting ready
for Revenue Canada's yearly round up of ‘tax protesters,' is unknown. I
think if you're a ‘Barrister & Solicitor,' you should know the legality
of income tax.

Do you even know the legal definition of the term ‘INCOME': (And I don't
mean form the ITA)

The legal definition of the word ‘INCOME.' is:

INCOME n The net receipts over disbursements in the taxation year in the
totality of the taxpayer's business as an ongoing concern other than
capital expenditures, gifts and the like.

Premium Iron Ores Ltd v. M.N.R.,
[1966] S.C.R. 685 [1966] C.T.C. 311,
66 D.T.C. 5280

Now, let's look at this closely. In order for you to make an Income, you
must be a business. Are you a business?

Here is the definition of ‘INCOME TAX.'

1. Tax on net income, i.e. income after deducting expenses incurred in
order to earn the income. P.W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 3d
ed.  (Toronto Carswell, 1992) at 743.

2. "...[A] charge upon the profits; the thing which is taxed is the
profit that is made,..." Ashton Gas Co. v. Attorney General (1905),
[1906] A.C. 10 at 12 (U.K. H.L.), Earl of Halsbury L.C.

So the following questions remain:
1) Using the above definition, when  working for a company, are you
being paid ‘INCOME' or, are you being compensated?

Compensation is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as:

" an equivalent or substitute of equal value." "Remuneration
for services rendered, whether in salary, fee, or commission."

Clearly, an employee does not make an ‘income.' He/she is not making
‘profit' he/she is being ‘compensated' for their talents. Let me give
you an example:

Person A is a graphic artist, person B has an idea about a poster he
wants made for an up and coming concert. Person B asks person A to
transform his idea into reality. Person A uses his/her talent to
complete the job to the satisfaction of person B. Person B then
compensates person A for his/her work.
Is the payment ‘income' or ‘compensation.'

To qualify for ‘income' there must be a profit. Where is the profit?

Simple enough right?

Here is a question you must consider; is there a natural order of law?
If there is, who is supreme? A natural person, or a corporation? 
Black's Law Dictionary defines a Corporation as a, "An artificial
person..."  The word Corporation comes from the word ‘corpse' which is
Latin for ‘body' commonly referred to as ‘dead body.'

So, who is supreme? A "natural living" person, or an "artificial dead

If a person is a natural and sovereign free common law citizen, does
he/she not have rights given to him/her from God, that can never be
changed by a simple ‘statute.'

Does the Income Tax Act have authority over a natural and sovereign free
common law citizen?

My God given rights are supreme over the laws of man. The Bible states;
"Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey
God rather than men." Acts 5:29

God does not command us to pay any "Income Tax" that goes to subsidize
the murder of babies.

David Sherman wrote:

"Utter nonsense. The Courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have
consistently ruled that the federal government has power of both direct
and indirect taxation"

The Supreme Court of Canada also ruled that: 

 Attorney-General of Nova Scotia et al.
 Attorney-General of Canada.

 50 DTC 838

 Supreme Court of Canada

 October 3, 1950

"Held: The appeal is dismissed. The B.N.A. Act contains no express words
for such delegation. The use of the word  'exclusively' in the Act
clearly indicates that a settled  line of demarcation was intended to be
made between the subjects  upon which the Parliament of Canada should
have power to legislate and those upon which the Provincial Legislature
might  legislate. It has become a maxim that neither body could 
increase or diminish its powers by its own action. The power of  a
legislative body to delegate to subordinate bodies is different from a
power to cede authority to another independent  legislative body. S. 94
is a clear negation of the idea of  delegation of legislative powers
>from  Parliament to a  Legislature and vice versa...." 

"The Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the several Provinces
are sovereign within their sphere defined by the British North America
Act, but none of them has the unlimited capacity of an individual. They
can exercise only the legislative powers respectively given to them by
sections 91 and  92 of the Act, and these powers must be found in either
of these sections.

The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to
the Legislatures; it belongs to the country  and it is there that the
citizens of the country will find the  protection of the rights to which
they are entitled. It is part  of that protection that Parliament can
legislate only on the  subject matters referred to it by section 91 and
that each Province can legislate exclusively on the subject matters 
referred to it by section 92. The country is entitled to insist  that
legislation adopted under section 91 should be passed  exclusively by
the Parliament of Canada in the same way as the  people of each Province
are entitled to insist that legislation  concerning the matters
enumerated in section 92 should come  exclusively from their respective

 Legislatures. In each case the Members elected to Parliament or  to the
Legislatures are the only ones entrusted with the power and the duty to
legislate concerning the subjects exclusively
 distributed by the constitutional Act to each of them.

   No power of delegation is expressed either in section 91 or in 
section 92, nor, indeed, is there to be found the power of  accepting
delegation from one body to the other; and I have no  doubt that if it
had been the intention to give such powers it would have been expressed
in clear and unequivocal language.
 Under the scheme of the British North America Act there were to be, in
the words of Lord Atkin in The Labour Conventions Reference, [1937] A.C.
326, 'watertight compartments which are
 an essential part of the original structure.'

   Neither legislative bodies, federal or provincial, possess any
portion of the powers respectively vested in the other and they cannot
receive it by delegation. In that connection the word
 'exclusively' used both in Section 91 and in Section 92  indicates a
settled line of demarcation and it does not belong  to either
Parliament, or the Legislatures, to confer powers upon  the other. (St.
Catharines Milling Co. v. The Queen, [1887] 13  S.C.R. 577 at 637, by
Strong J.; C.P.R. v. Notre Dame de  Bonsecours Parish, [1899] A.C. 367,
-- per Lord Watson and Lord  Davey-See Lefroy's Canada's Federal System,
1913, p. 70 note  10(a).)

I think the words of Chief Justice Rinfret are self-explanatory. 
What part of the word ‘EXCLUSIVE" doesn't Revenue Canada understand? 

I had posted some questions before regarding the Income Tax system.
Perhaps you can answer these questions for us. (Please supply
documentation for your assertion.)

1) What takes precedence in Canada,  common law, or statutory

2) If  Canada is under common law, is a statutory regulation that is 
inconsistent  with common law of no force or effect?
3) Is working a right, or a privilege?

4) If working is a right, can governments tax rights?

5) If by using the legal definition of ‘INCOME,' and since all employees
don't make an ‘INCOME,' why  should they pay an ‘INCOME' tax?

6) Is filing an Income Tax form ‘voluntary compliance?'

7) Is filing an Income Tax form entering a contract with the federal

8) Since true law cannot compel performance, how can you be made a
criminal by not filing a form?

Now let's recap:

1) Canada is a Common Law country. Since you have the God given right to
your life, you have the right to sustain it. That means you have to
exchange your talents for money, so you can have a roof over your head,
and food to eat.  The government has no common law right to tax you
based on compensation you receive for your talents. 

2) How can the government of Canada force it citizens to pay money to a
morally corrupt society. I as a Christian, should not have to pay for
the murder of babies, the fostering of the homosexual life style, and
the suicide of our western way of life called multiculturalism.

3) Leally, as I have stated earlier, the legal definition of Income, and
Income Tax does not comply employees to pay a ‘tax' for their
compensation. Income tax is the tax based on profits made. If there is
no profit made, there is no income, no income, no tax.

4) The Supreme Court of Canada has stated power sharing agreements
between the federal, and provincial governments must be within s91 and
s92 of the BNA Act. And the word EXCLUSIVE was used for a reason.  What
part of the word EXCLUSIVE don't you understand?

Did you know that the term voluntary compliance is used in Revenue
Canada's own documents?
Rev Canada's own; "Ensuring Fairness of the Income Tax System: Detection
of Non-Filers and Special Investigations," uses the term voluntary
compliance, the question is; how can you ‘voluntarily comply?

One last parting piece of info: Is income tax slavery, or our we living
in a free country?

Blacks's Law Dictionary defines a slave as: 

"....A person who is wholly subject to the will of  to another;..."

While we could debate for ever whether we are ‘wholly' subject to the
thugs at Revenue Canada, it is irrefutable that unless we ‘volunteer' to
give a portion of our hard-earned ‘compensation,' (not income) we will
find ourselves in front of a black-robed demigod facing a fine or a jail
To that end, we are ‘wholly subjected' to intimidation and the threat of
jail time for not given Geno his extortion money.  Your level of comfort
will depend on your "Voluntary Compliance."

Johann W. Von Goethe said "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those
who falsely believe they are free." Do you believe we live in a ‘free'
country? Do you believe in the common law principal of freedom? 
Do you believe you own you home? I say you don't, If you don't believe
me, stop paying your property tax for a few years. Soon you will see who
really owns ‘your' home when they come and kick you out. 

Samuel Adams said, "The right to freedom being the gift of God, it is
not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily  become a

Yes people if you pay an illegal and abhorrent ‘income tax' you've
‘voluntarily' became a slave through your own ignorance. 
How do you feel about the fact that your hard-earned money goes to
subsidize the murder of babies?

Joseph Lockhart

Natural Sovereign and Free Common Law Citizen

P.O. Box 345
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 2H6
(204) 775-0878 Voice/Fax

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.