Section 238(1) of the Income Tax Act is a crime of strict or absolute liability and the crime holds a potential penalty of a year of incarceration for failure to comply. The crown merely has to assert that the crime has been committed and that they have can’t find any records and if I cant find them either then I’m guilty! There are no reasons, excuses, or extenuating circumstances allowed and the ‘crime’ has a potential term of imprisonment. This combination of liability and imprisonment has been found unconstitutional before and the precedent is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_BC_Motor_Vehicle_Act
“The decision established one of the first principles of fundamental justice in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter“), beyond mere natural justice, by requiring a fault component for all offences with penal consequences.”
The Crown knows that the law is unconstitutional and other countries have changed their Income Tax laws to remove the oppression. I believe that Canada has not changed the law in order to be oppressive.
At Provincial Court in Nakusp the Judge skipped debating the constitutional question of the income tax act before trial and even preferred to communicate the problem of judicial corruption contained within the 2nd constitutional question in preference to debating the unconstitutionality of the Income Tax Act. When I finally forced the debate and provided precedent and argument, the crown responded with ZERO argument BUT the judge ruled against me claiming that he just knew the law but could not point to the law but promised that at appeal I would be presented with the evidence. On appeal there was ZERO precedent or argument presented AND I pointed out the inherent bias of the court and the public service when their wages are tied to the enforcement of the Income tax act. The Judge on appeal delayed setting a date for a decision for 6 months and is due in late April or early May.
I also communicated the Constitutional question regarding the status of my Charter of Rights application to have Parliament determine the matter of Judges claiming absolute discretion to ignore all evidence.
NOTIFICATION
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ACT
In the Provincial Court of British Columbia
Regina v Trevor Russell Holsworth Court file 26418 Nakusp Registry
Regina v Trevor Russell Holsworth Court file 26419 Nakusp Registry
Constitutional Question Act
S 8(2) If in a cause, matter or other proceeding
(a)the constitutional validity or constitutional applicability of any law is challenged
The Law in question:
Income Tax Act R.S.C., 1985, c. 1
s 238 (1) Every person who has failed to file or make a return as and when required by or under this Act or a regulation or who has failed to comply with subsection 116(3), 127(3.1) or (3.2) 147.1(7) or 153(1), any of sections 230 to 232, 244.7 and 267 or a regulation made under subsection 147.1(18) or with an order made under subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, is liable on summary conviction to
a) a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $25,000; or
b) both the fine described in paragraph 238(1)(a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months.
Date of Trial: July 15th, 2021 at Nakusp
Particulars:
1. The Income Tax Act provides for a term of imprisonment which is contrary to the Charter of Rights as stated in Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, 1985, 2 SCR 486
Furthermore
S 8 (2) (b) an application is made for a constitutional remedy
Particulars:
- The Canadian Judicial Council claims by their letter to me dated August 28, 2007 that Judges have absolute unfettered discretion to accept or reject all evidence including the official court record, the transcript.
- I served the Attorney General of Canada / Minister of Justice David Lametti on March 9th 2020 by registered letter through the office of the Deputy Attorney General’s office as specified under serving the Crown on the Ministry of Justice website with a charter notice as per s 24(1) of the Charter of Rights.
- The Charter Notice is attached in Appendix A.
- No formal response was ever received.
- No notification to Parliament was ever made.
- I hereby apply for the constitutional remedy outlined in my Charter Notice to be applied, for the constitutionality of the Courts be checked by Parliament and other such remedies be provided as that court determines.
Appendix A
Delivered to Deputy Attorney General’s office on March 9th, 2020
Initials of the receiving agent is M F and the Canada Post item number is RN445243445CA
A copy was also emailed directly to AG/MOJ David Lametti.
Trevor Holsworth
David Lametti
Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0H8
Federal Judges through the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) are claiming the right to dispense arbitrary justice contrary to the principles of fundamental justice of which a lack of arbitrariness is the primary factor. The CJC claim that Federal Judges do not have to accept the official transcript of trial as the highest form of evidence possible, that they have the discretion to accept other evidence such as personal testimony in preference. A large number of problems follow from that position and have effected my rights personally and continue to do so. I have requested from the CJC that they explain how they can hold that position with regards to my Charter of Rights or submit my complaint in regards to their position to Parliament to get confirmation of its legality but they have denied both requests.
Section 24 of The Charter of Rights allows me to enforce my rights
“(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”
The only Court of competent jurisdiction to judge the judges who judge the judges is Parliament. I have currently lost most of my legal rights except obviously my right to life but I am in fear of losing that. I am hereby applying to Parliament for the protection of my charter of rights. Obviously urgency is of prime importance.
Yours sincerely,
Trevor Holsworth