XPost: can.general, can.politics   
   From: Canuck57@nospam.com   
      
   On 11/08/2011 10:57 AM, David Johnston wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   I do too.  As I know first hand the CRA doesn't even check its own   
   information in its harassment of people.   
      
   Then the judges representing the government payee, over turn a jury and   
   the people should see the bias.   
      
   I have been in court several times as a witness or whatever, never as a   
   defendant.  But  have seen enough to know the court sessions are rigged.   
   WWF has more realism.   
      
      
   --   
   Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted   
   behavior in USA.  Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)