You, your spouse, your children and your grandchildren are trapped by a very hungry pride of lions somewhere out in the wilderness.
If you believe it would be immoral or illegal to do anything that would deprive the lions of their intended dinner, then, read no further......

Part One: Frequently Asked Initial Questions
Part Two: Repudiation Excuses
Part Three: Meaning of Person
Part Four: Scam and/or Entrapment Alert
Part Five: Other Detax Program Questions



YES - This system works just fine! I have been using this system myself since the mid 1980's. Many others have been using it since the late 1980's. Recently, some people who have used my detax system got caught in 'jurisdiction traps' set up by CRA, crown Attorneys and Judges, so the program was switched to 'filing for one's strawman. That is explained in my 'filing procedures' webpage.

NO - You won't go to jail; and/or lose your property and life savings!
Of course, it would be prudent to make some security arrangements and do some asset protection. Thieves and pirates have no moral ethics.

NO - The Government will not go broke! Income taxes do not pay for any government services. It is a method of taking usury debt money (Canadian money) out of circulation to (supposedly) prevent devaluation of that money - at your expense - by taking the fruits of your labour and skill and deleting it from existence. For some reference material on this, go to: Fair Share

AUTHOR'S OBJECTIVE - Canada is a major DISASTER relative to the Rights Of Canadians. We have had a "PIRATE" and "IMPOSTER" de facto government in control of Canada since 1931. And, we have had a "PRETENDER" in the de facto position of Monarch of Canada since Queen Victoria's death in 1901. This pirate Federal government has direct control over the Provincial governments - thus making them also part of the GRAND hoax. A "de facto" government exists by usurpation. A Canadian Government document which relates the origins of the Canadian Constitution states that the present government "assumed" power in 1931. In relation to a government gaining sovereign powers, the word "assume" is synonomous with "usurp", according to the Webster Dictionary.

A "de jure" government is one emplaced by lawful methods and with the consent of the People. Have you ever heard of any lawful procedures - like a referendum, ever being voted upon by Canadians at any time in the past? Voting currently is voting for club officers. You must join the club (register to vote) to vote for anything in Canada.

There is even a "law" within the Canadian Criminal Code that may have been in place before 1931. Section 15 says: "No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs." If a "person" - a body without a freewill mind and subject to the de facto Crown is not subject to this de facto government, how much less would a freeman with Common Law Rights be subject to the "laws" of such a government?

By definition, "pirates" loot, rob, plunder and destroy. Through the complicity of this pirate government, the International Bankers have converted Canada into a subservient SLAVE STATE of their UNITED NATION'S "One World Government". The Bankers' USURY MONEY SYSTEM and the INCOME TAX is their "choke chain" control mechanism of Canada and the Canadian People.

This "IMPOSTER" government has turned over our National Parks and other large areas of land in Canada to the United Nations. The National Parks are now operated as private property requiring permission (for an ever increasing fee) for Canadians to make use and enjoy them. The mineral wealth of Canada, alone, makes it totally unnecessary for the need for user fees or other license requirements the Parks Service is imposing upon Canadians to use what is rightfully theirs.

Before we can conceivably do anything to counter this loss of our country and our sovereignty, we must become educated as to what are our heritage and our inherent rights. It is hoped that by getting the attention of Canadians through their being shown a method by which to get out of the income tax system would trigger a wider range of interest and promote some activity toward the process of doing something to correct the problems of our country. The QUESTION: Has the Canadian peoples' sense of moral and ethical responsibility deteoriated to; or, has it been driven to, a level below that which will prevent them from responding to a "wake up" call?

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people except by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Patrick Henry

Note: Americans like to use the expression "citizen"; however, it means one who is SUBJECT (under the authority of) to government in our Roman law system.

The information I have available on detaxing is a compendium of the research done by others; however, as "pieces of a puzzle", that information had to be assembled in order to make sense as a picture - the dreadful dilemma existing in Canada. The other so-called "detax" organizations are directing Canadians to "pitch their tents on a railroad track". This statement is not competitively motivated; it is a statement of fact. I am not motivated by mercenary entrepreneurship. That does not mean that I don't need some financial help in this venture. I would hope that Canadians still have some smoldering embers of patriotism and moral values which can be fanned into flames of activism by either educating their fellow Canadians; or, by offering financial support to those who are willing to get out on the front lines of this battle in the attempt to take back our country.

Part One: Back To The Top
Part Three: Meaning of Person
Part Four: Scam and/or Entrapment Alert
Part Five: Other Detax Program Questions



"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - - -

That principle is: contempt prior to investigation."

Herbert Spencer's worthy interpretation of The Gospel of Mark 3:29

Frequently, there is a "firewall", or a mind blockage, especially by the university educated people in Canada against the acceptance of the material contained in this paper. Although the observation applies more directly to the disciplines of law, accounting, political science, education and economics, it seems to hold true to a degree to all other disciplines as well. Since the facts in this paper are irrefutable; and, the system of detaxing has been proven effective for over 15 years, the reason for the so-called intellectual rejection seems to fall into one, or all of the following catagories:

    1. Self-serving - income tax counseling, income tax return preparation and income tax litigation are cash cows for many of those in the parasitic professions.

    2. An elitist attitude and arrogance will not allow the person to admit that the very fundamental basis of this detax system has eluded them;

    3. Cowardice is prevalent in Canadians. Also, fear is rationalized into other excuses by those who would reject this opportunity to extract themselves from this form of slavery. For instance, there is the excuse of "patriotism" which is based upon a false understanding of the purpose and use of the income tax.

    4. Aristotle's "Fallacies of Philosophy" are "dirty tricks" used by unscrupulous persons to persuade an outcome favourable to themselves in a debate.

      (a) The first one we will take notice of is when someone will not give consideration to the value of a statement if it does not come from a recognized "authority" - ignoratio elenchi (argumentum ad verecundiam);

      (b) Secondly, there is the statement that "the only sure things are death and taxes". "A lie repeated often, especially from supposedly authoritative sources, eventually becomes established as a fact";

      (c) And, thirdly, the deception of pairing a fiction - "taxes are a sure thing" - with something that is obviously a sure thing - "death".

    5. There is a human trait whereby captives, prisoners or hostages tend to identify, by rationalization, with their captors. Several generations of Canadians have lived under a state of slavery to British nobility as "subjects". They have rationalized a "comfort zone" whereby they have accepted their state of servitude to government and British royalty. There is no lawful reason Canadians must still accept this state of existence - the static inertia is the result of the mental forces of zero momentum in the "comfort zone" rationalized by having been in a state of slavery for several generations.

      As used here: Slavery. The state of a man being owned, or being claimed to being owned, by another man, or a group of men, living under natural or fictitious [corporate] name(s).

Therefore, don't be surprised when your family, friends and co-workers
greet your new-found insight with something less than enthusiasm.

I have been asked for the names of people who are using this detax program. I do not keep records, mainly for privacy reasons. However, the hit counter on my home page has been going since mid June, 1998.

Part One: Back To The Top
Part Two: Repudiation Excuses
Part Four: Scam and/or Entrapment Alert
Part Five: Other Detax Program Questions



In considering a man (male or female) to be a "person", the use of the term "person" in law does not mean a material change - is means a status change.

For a flesh and blood man with free will status, the volitional mind, capable of moral thinking, within the body (brain) has unlimited liability/absolute rights. Because the mind creates and controls the body, that body has the same status as the volitional mind.

In a status change (by a flesh and blood man) to that of a limited liability fictional (legal) entity, either as a corporation sole, as a member of a corporation, or as an outlawed man (ward of the Crown), he/she loses the right of having their own volitional mind control the body in which the mind exists.

The ancient Persians devised this status to control military troops; however, it was expanded by the Roman, and to a much greater extent by the British to include all people. In this converted status state of existence, the people were called "citizens" or "subjects", both of which were then referred to only as "persons". Such a status change in a common law system can ONLY be by contract between the volitional mind of the affected man and the sovereign authority bestowed with the privilege of creating this status of fictional legal entity.

In more recent times, and as a secondary way of entrapping people into being 'subjects/economic slaves', the Crown has attached a legal fiction name (sometimes referred to as a 'strawman') to a man's body by way of the birth certificate registration or immigration documents. When in a court situation, this 'legal name' is always in all capital letters, and sometimes combined with the military presentation (nom de guerre) of having the family name first, followed by a comma and then the given names. I often hear from people wishing to 'claim their strawman'. One cannot 'claim' another's property, unless you have a proven debt against the owner of the property you claim. Since the legal identity name and the associated Social Insurance Number (SIN# or SSN#) belongs to the Crown or State, you cannot claim it.

In most cases, the status change contract was assumed by the Crown when the affected man performed an act indicating the existence of such a contract. That act, such as filing an income tax return, obtaining a driver's or marriage license, or any other license which are issued for acts that are normally lawful was done in a state of ignorance by the affected man/woman. This makes the contract fraudulent, and thus voidable by the injured party, and only the injured party.

In law, the term "person" has been used as a trap, because the common usage is that a "person" just means a flesh and blood man; however, in law, it means exactly what the etymology of the word signifies - a fictional character or a man who has contracted away his right of free will - a free will man changed in status to a "natural person".

Such "persons" created by the Crown are limited liability/and under privilege by gift of the creator, in the case of law in Canada, the British Crown - itself a limited liability fiction from ancient Roman times incorporated the English Crown as a sub-corporation around 1300 by the Pope of the time.

In summation:

Flesh and blood man (male or female) with free will status - unlimited liability/absolute rights of life, liberty and property, and the rights and liberties in law that are declared within the Magna Carta 1215/1225, are not "legal persons".

"Person" - in law, a legal fiction - a fictional character or a living man without a controlling volitional (free will) mind. As with an Also Known As, you can call your own body "my person" with full understanding that it is totally under the control of your own mind. However, as with an AKA, ONLY you can assign your body as a "person". No one else, except a jury of your peers can so do where there is proof that your mind is not functioning in a moral (lawful) manner, or you knowingly and willingly make a contract with the Crown to do so; however, such contract with the Crown is only as a limited liability "person".

Part One: Back To The Top
Part Two: Repudiation Excuses
Part Three: Meaning of Person
Part Five: Other Detax Program Questions


Any so-called DETAX program that does not get you out of the assumed incorporation or status change contract with the Crown to then be deemed to be a "person" - a fictitious entity, is useless - and dangerous to your economic health.

I am not sure why these programs have been promoted; however, all they do is make fodder for the courts and additional illicit money for the Government. Confrontation, while still in the assumed contract of being a taxpayer, is non-productive toward the desired results of being free of the income tax system.

Although the promotion of the other so-called detax programs may not be CRA entrapment programs designed to set up Canadians for Tax Evasion charges, they will most certainly be used by the CRA for that purpose. Such usage would be used to denigrate the very effective "DetaxCanada" program.

The TEST:    In their program,

    1. Do you remain within the system? That is, are you still required to keep records, file income tax returns and negotiate in any way with CRA ?
    2. Are you directed to file frivolous and unsigned (or signed using "without prejudice" after your signature) income tax returns?
    3. Are you still left as a feudal serf - a "taxpayer" because you are deemed to be a "person" resident in Canada?
    4. Are you left under the authority of CRA?
    5. Are you told that income tax is voluntary because of the "voluntary compliance" clause mentioned in CRA agents' manual?
    6. Are you left in a "confrontational" position with the CRA, rather than being left in a position of "withdrawal" from the entire income tax system?

If "yes" to any of the above,
BEWARE, it is not a "detax" system.

Many people in the USA got trapped by IRS sponsored "sting operations" (which were run by either IRS accomplices or naive entrepreneurs) by declaring themselves in rebellion against the income tax. Their presence and participation in these programs made those people with such attitudes known. They were declared "Illegal Tax Protesters" (ITP's), which is equivalent to "mutineer" under Admiralty Law. And, Admiralty/Merchant Law is the form of law under which the Canadian income tax is administered.  Rather than have a bullseye placed upon your back, why not run up this flag --

Gadsden Flag

Part One: Back To The Top
Part Two: Repudiation Excuses
Part Three: Meaning of Person
Part Four: Scam and/or Entrapment Alert



Q: What about public service questionaires to CRA agents?
A: CRA agents are NOT public servants. They are administrators of private legislation. There may be some intimidation factor for low level CRA agents; however, it does not change anything relative to your status as a "person", and thus a TAXPAYER, or, to prevent you from being summonsed to court on income tax charges.

Q: What about suits (class action or individual) against CRA agents?
A: CRA has control over courts and the justice system. Such suits are expensive, diversionary and unproductive. There may be ways to effectively sue them; however, the normal legal method will not likely work.

Q: What about a "corporation sole"?
A: A corporation of any kind only has legal value if it is given Roman personhood by a sovereign authority, upon which such authority was originally bestowed by the Pope of Rome. Any corporation is a figment of imagination originating in Roman law. There is no such thing as a corporation existing within the Anglo-Saxon Common Law. The law dictionary defines a corporation as an organization given limited liability by letter patent from the Crown. Anything else calling itself a corporation is a quasi-corporation; and, has no legal value in Law Merchant (Admiralty Law). Common Law does NOT recognize corporations, except as dead persons outside the law. True "corporation soles" are synonomous with "professional corporations" (an individual man under limited liability). A quasi-corporation sole offers NO protection on a legal basis; and, it cannot operate or seek the protections and rights of the Common Law or make contract. Also, all corporations fall within the definition of "person" and "taxpayer" in the Income Tax Act.

Q: What about Common Law trusts?
A: A Common Law trust is also called a pure trust; and, is a contract of trust between sovereign humans under their own proper or Christian names. Since Canada has been under Admiralty or Law Merchant since its inception, Common Law trusts are not a safe tool for asset protection under this present regime.

NOTE: In Anglo-Saxon Common Law (the only system of law which confers RIGHTS on mankind), we can claim these Rights ONLY as men (male or female) under proper or given names. Regarding the Anglo-Saxon Common Law, the Preface to the written text of the the Constitution of the State of California, as found in California public library reference sections says: "The British Common Law shall be the law of the State of California. All other forms of German or other European common law are not recognized or valid in California". (Paraphrased)(See note below). All other so-called "common law" systems are civil or Roman law based. The Law Society (presently in control of our justice system) are want to call PRECEDENT law (or judge-made law) "common law". Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the US republic stated in his book, dated 1792, "Government by precedent is the most VILE form of government". In those days, government's main responsibility was public safety, or justice.

Since writing this, I have come to understand that 'British" common law is NOT Anglo-Saxon common law. This difference is explained in my TREASON webpage.

Q: What about "voluntary compliance"?
A: The word "compliance" means compelled performance. Here, "voluntary" means complying without being ordered to do so. The Income Tax Act has provisions to compel performance, if it is not done "voluntarily". The term is an oxymoron.

Q: Haven't there been lawyers and/or judges who have stated that "natural person" is included in the Income Tax Act definition of "person"?
A: An example I have before me is from "A Treatise On The Dominion Income Tax Law" by lawyers C.P. Plaxton and F.P. Varcoe, dated 1930; and published by The Carswell Company Ltd.
They state that "natural persons" are included in the definition of person; that "individual" is synonymous with "natural person"; and, that "resident" applies to all persons.

    1. This opinion was made while Canada was still a subservient colony of Britain; and, which existed as a ship of the British Merchant Marine. Canadians were "Roman legal entities or crewmembers" - not whole, or free will, men. In 1931, Canadians gained the right to be sovereign men(m/f). Also, since the term "person" comes from the latin term "persona -mask or role of an actor", "natural person" can be construed to mean a man under contract to be a corporate (fictional) person.

    2. A sovereign man "lives" somewhere. A legal entity "resides" somewhere.
        "res" - "thing or matter"; "ident" - "location of"

    3. In law, when the term "includes" is used alone, it designates ONLY that which is found in something. If other things are also in that thing; but are not mentioned, the legal term is "includes; but not limited to". These lawyers added words and/or meaning to the Income Tax Act definition of "person"; which is a violation of the "Construction of Statutes" - and thus constitutes FRAUD, since, by the use and colloquial understanding of the term "natural persons", it was obviously intended to convince "men" that they were required to relinquish rights and property.

    4. A man may be an individual. However, when "individual" is used in a statute, the meaning has to be construed based upon the context of the Statute. As with the Income Tax Act, a man cannot be construed to be directly affected by the scope of the Act as it would violate ALL Common Law RIGHTS. Also, the Income Tax Act defines "individual as a person other than a corporation. This only leaves a 'natural person' a man under servitude as a legal fiction (strawman owned by the Crown, or under contract of servitude to the Crown. Until recently, the Income Tax Act clearly defined a "person" as being (includes) a body politic and body corporate - both of which are 'artificial persons'. The only way a man becomes subjugated to the Act is by way of contract wherein his/her status is changed from free will man to person. The making of such contract is voluntary for a free will man.

Q. I am being asked frequently: Why don't you work with these other detax organizations instead of being so critical of their activities?
A. There is only ONE reasonably safe path through this swamp. ALL OTHERS lead into the quicksand!!

"If good apples are combined in a barrel with apples that have rotten spots, one soon has a barrel of rotten apples."




This Web Page And Its Contents Presented By:

Eldon G. Warman

Part One: Back To The Top
Part Two: Repudiation Excuses
Part Three: Meaning of Person
Part Four: Scam and/or Entrapment Alert
Part Five: Other Detax Program Questions



© DetaxCanada 1999 thru 2013