7afad457
XPost: can.general, can.politics
From: David@block.net
On 8/11/2011 10:14 AM, Alan Baggett wrote:
> On Aug 10, 7:47 am, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 8/10/2011 5:48 AM, Alan Baggett wrote:
>>
>>>> The appeals courts are not "the government". The ruling party has no
>>>> control over their rulings. And while I'm sure you are SHOCKED to learn
>>>> that the Supreme Court is made of judges, I'll remind you that crown
>>>> prosecutors have a much more restricted right to appeal than convicts.
>>
>>> The 1.3 million decision wasn't just for trauma but also to punish the
>>> federals for negligence and abuse of process.
>>
>> In what way were they being negligent or abusing process?
>
> Inside the CRA it works like this:
>
> If you want info from a person/corp etc. you send them a Requirement
> For Information (RFI). The RFI is a legal document and must be
> complied with i.e. responded to in the alloted time.
>
> If the person etc. does not comply, does not comply fully or in timely
> fashion they can be held accountable in Court meaning a fine, jail
> time AND they must still supply the requested info.
>
> Neumann had already supplied the requested info to the CRA properly
> and timely and the CRA agrees that he did. And, when they did the
> search, this confirmed that Neumann did everything properly.
>
> So if the CRA believed that Neumann was deficient in any sense then
> why did they skip court and go right to a search?
>
> If Neumann had been responding about himself or responding about a non-
> arm's length relationship then maybe the search could be excused.
> Maybe he might have been hiding something.
>
> But he was responding to an arm's length business relationship - he
> had no reason to hide anything and he didn't.
I find your argument compelling.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
