Desmond McGrath
Canada starts taxing underused property inside provinces
FacebookTwitter
By Desmond McGrath
May 1, 2023

Many inside sovereign states, like America, Canada, and Australia as prime examples, do not understand the concept of separation of powers and are oblivious to many Ultra Vires bills/acts that get passed by the federal representatives who lack the authority to do so.

In Canada, the Turd’eau (spelling intentional) has given royal assent to a Klaus Schwab pipe dream of taxing underused property and housing. Below is my response to the agency tasked with enforcing it—another component of the Great Reset. I have added a picture to the web version showing the tyrants from King John to Klaus Schwab who seeks total power with no responsibility. Not unlike King John, Turd’eau rode roughshod over the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the Plandemic and is still doing so with WEF Adept Freeland bringing up the rear guard. Coincidentally, John I’s last name was Lacksland (Fr. Jean sans Terre), and as far as the Canadian Laurentian Elite are concerned, the Magna Charta is just an old document and there should be no jury trials because the people don’t understand the law. "You will own nothing, and you will be happy,” said Klaus Schwab. The Underused Housing Tax Act Is just another step down the road to serfdom.

John Desmond McGrath
USA 70360
Saturday, April 29, 2023

Winnipeg Tax Centre
Post Office Box 14001
Station Main
Winnipeg MB R3C 3M3
Canada

RE: Underused Housing Tax Act.

To whom it may concern:

Attached is my (signed as a “Ultra Vires Objector”) Underused Housing Tax Return and Election Form with my name and signature signed under statutory duress.

I, John Desmond McGrath, free man of Commoner status, holder of a Canadian Passport and Newfoundland Birth Certificate, acting as Pro Se on my own behalf hereby declare the following after closely reviewing the “Underused Housing Tax Act” S.C. 2022, c. 5, s. 10:

  1. That I am not a person to whom the context [1] of said Ultra Vires act applies.

  2. Nor is any property I may or may not own, subject to any statutory authority of his Majesty in the right of Canada for the purposes of direct taxation on real property, particularly any alleged house, within any municipal and provincial boundaries, which is of exclusive Provincial Jurisdiction, via Section 92 of the British North America Act:

      Subjects of exclusive provincial jurisdiction:

      92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say,—

      2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.

      8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.

      13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

      15. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.

      16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

  3. Additionally, as to the classes of subjects in Section 92, the Federal Government is prohibited from entry by Section 91: clause 29.

      29. Such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces.

      And any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces.

  4. I own no real property or house outside the former Dominion of Newfoundland and any decisions on the rate of use or underuse is a matter of local and private nature in the province, regardless of what Klaus Schwab’s, Justin Trudeau’s, Chrystia Freeland’s or King Charles III’s political ideologies dictate.

  5. This shall be the only time the undersigned shall send any filing with regards to the Ultra Vires “Underused Housing Tax Act” S.C. 2022, c. 5, s. 10. Don’t expect any future filings as it is the undersigned’s position that the Federal Government of Canada, His Majesty in the right of Canada and their agent the Canada Revenue Agency lack all subject matter, personal jurisdiction and Royal prerogative over the direct taxation of any housing within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of the purpose of said taxation or the citizenship/primary residence of said housing’s owner.

  6. It is the undersigned’s position that non-resident property owners, particularly in rural Newfoundland are being deceived in the same manner an unscrupulous star chamber or admiralty court in total want of all forms of jurisdiction could impose a stiff contempt fine on anyone for not filing a plea to force said person over which it had no power, to acknowledge said court’s jurisdiction by entering a plea. Such Statutory duress harkens back to the evictions of the Lundrigan-Butler Affair [2], and previous Royal Naval Governorship controlling housing on the coast of Newfoundland. Said Crown involvement in imposing such a tax, harkens back to the Great Case of Ship Money [3] and such mandatory Crown registration has not been seen since William the Conqueror’s Domesday Book of 1086.

  7. Despite Charles I doing battle in a friendly Exchequer court and prohibitions of the Magna Charta stipulation that only Parliament has the power to raise taxes Charles won in a narrow decision in the exchequer court but later lost his head on populous revolt; the Supremacy of Parliament reigned supreme and the Magna Charta reaffirmed.

    39 No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised [4], or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

  8. “The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property: which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.” …

    “So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.” …

    “Nor is this the only instance in which the law of the land has postponed even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property. For no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes, even for the defence of the realm or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representatives in parliament.” [5]

  9. The Statute of Westminster, 1931 declared that Canada and Newfoundland were equal Dominions and the Newfoundland House of Assembly became our supreme Parliament. The Power of the Newfoundland Parliament was superior to that of the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa as Ottawa was only doled out the powers of section 91 of the original British North America Act and the remainder exclusively retained in Section 92 by the other provinces prior to 1949.

  10. During the Terms of Union, The Newfoundland Act of 1949 there was no surrender of territory and none of the Island’s or Labrador’s land mass was transferred to the Jurisdiction of Ottawa’s Parliament. [6]

  11. The Constitution of Newfoundland was fully recognized and restored at the point of union. [7] This included but not limited to the Magna Charta and the Judicature Act, 1824, 5 GEO. IV., Cap. 67.

  12. All the powers of the Governor representing the crown in Newfoundland were divided “under the authority of the British North America Acts” [8] between the Federal Crown and the Provincial Crown. This is commonly referred “His Majesty in the right of Canada” and “His Majesty in the right of Newfoundland.”

      a. It is noted that Part 2 §5 of the UHTA ‘This Act is binding on Her His Majesty in right of Canada or a province.’, yet the taxes and penalties thus imposed are all Payable to Her His Majesty in right of Canada.

      b. Where is it Constitutionally Codified that the Federal Crown can dictate terms to the Provincial Crown so the Federal Crown can stick its hands directly in people’s pockets in every nook and cranny of Newfoundland or any other province like New Brunswick.

      c. Was this act debated by the respective provincial representatives and given royal assent by the respective Lieutenant Governors and for property that exists within the City of St, John’s NL (Inc. 1888) or City of St. John NB (Inc. 1785) did the respective city representatives approve the parasitic extraction of monies from within their boundaries by the Federal Crown?

  13. At the point of union, Parliament in Ottawa and the Newfoundland House of Assembly had Income war Tax Acts that were of identical provenance except for the phrase “that part of Canada to which the context extends”. It certainly did not extend to Newfoundland as the Terms of Union was this clause:

      The Government of Canada will forthwith after the date of Union make an offer to the Government of the Province of Newfoundland to enter into a tax agreement for the rental to the Government of Canada of the income, corporation income, and corporation tax fields, and the succession duties tax field . [9]

  14. Newfoundlanders became chattel bartered between the Provincial and Federal Crown. “80 cents per head of the population of the Province of Newfoundland” [10] was the going rate.

  15. Shortly after Confederation with Canada was the Lord Nelson Hotel Case [11]

    “The Parliament of Canada and each Provincial Legislature is a sovereign body within its sphere, possessed of exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with regard to the subject matters assigned to it under s. 91 or s. 92, as the case may be. Neither is capable therefore of delegating to the other the powers with which it has been vested nor of receiving from the other the powers with which the other has been vested.”

    “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 [12], "water-tight 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,”

  16. The Lord Nelson Hotel case emphasized the watertight compartments of the original British North America Act and if His Majesty in the right of Canada had the unlimited power and royal prerogative of direct personal taxation within the former Dominion of Newfoundland after Union with Canada there would have been no need to rent them.

DECLARATION:

Based on the forgoing, it is the proclamation of the undersigned that I, a Freeman of Commoner Status in the full and free exercise of my third absolute right of property do not recognize any royal prerogative vested in Charles III or the Parliament in Ottawa to regulate or impose direct taxation on behalf of the Federal Crown in the right of Canada on personal property within the former Dominion of Newfoundland now known as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Where Charles I had the “Great Case of Ships Money”, this is Charles III’s “Ship Worm Money” due to the manner it which it brazenly breaches the “Water Tight Compartments” of the British North America act which served as the basis for Newfoundland’s CON-Federation with the other Sovereign Canadian Provinces. Said breach was fomented to promote unconstitutional political Ideologies.

“Underused” is reminiscent of the Ottawa Fish Bureaucrats verbiage of “Underutilized” species while they bankrupted the Grand Banks in an ethnic cleansing that parallels the extermination of the Plains Bison. Its purpose reeks of “Orwellian Newspeak” scripted by Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw. Regardless if the property is owned by a Canadian Citizen or non-citizen, given that there has been 30 years of outmigration (aka Ethnic Cleansing) from the very outports that agents of the Federal Crown all but destroyed, there are thousands of such properties within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then to fraudulently and deceptively put everybody under Statutory Duress to sign a document acknowledging the Federal Crowns jurisdiction over said property without a long dragged-out fight from our 7 elected & 5 appointed trained seals in Ottawa and 40 elected Vichy Newfoundlanders in the House of Assembly shows that Newfoundland has made the final transition from a Colony of Whitehall Palace to a Colony of Gorffwysfa and Rideau Cottage. Said Tax is 1% today what will it be a decade from now, given that the St. John’s residential property Tax Rate is ONLY 0.83%

“There is no such thing as consistent stupidity as those acting in a randomly stupid manner will occasionally err in your favor” – Hon. RS Furlong C.J. Supreme Court of Newfoundland, whom our family affectionally called “Uncle Bob” He sometimes added the caveat “If they never occasionally err in your favor there must be a malevolent design to the consistent stupidity”

The Federal Government of Canada has never erred in Newfoundland’s favour!

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.” Thomas Jefferson.[13]

On its face the UHTA is Taxation without Representation no different than the Stamp Act of 1765 [14] and the use of the Canada Revenue Agency and Federal Courts for enforcement are no different that the “use of admiralty courts that conducted trials without juries, in “violation of the rights of all free Englishmen.” [15]

If the Crown in the Right of Canada believes that the undersigned and any property he may or may not own within the Sovereign Province of Newfoundland and Labrador known as the former Dominion of Newfoundland is subject to this act; the only court the undersigned recognizes as having the original and fully competent jurisdiction to hear said Charges in R. vs. McGrath is the Supreme Court of Newfoundland whose very mandate originated over the brutal summary justice of colonial oppression. Hearing said dispute in any other court would just be attempting to repeat R v. Hampden for Charles III.

The undersigned, John Desmond McGrath is not subject to the Ultra Vires “Underused Housing Tax Act” S.C. 2022, c. 5, s. 10, nor is any property He may or may not own with the Sovereign Province of Newfoundland and Labrador subject to the provisions thereof. Nor does he recognize any legitimate lawful authority to impose the financial statutory duress deceptively used to get other property owners to surrender their individual rights and Sovereignty and consent to surrender such subject matter jurisdiction to the Federal Crown that has never been constitutionally granted.

John Desmond McGrath
Free Man of Commoner Status.

cc:

    City of St. John’s NL
    City of St. John NB
    All Newfoundland and Labrador Representatives in Ottawa.
    Each MHA in the House of Assembly.
    Each Municipality in Newfoundland.
    Other Concerned Parties

End notes:

[1] Canada Income War Tax 1917 Act 2. (d) "person" means any individual or person and any syndicate, trust, association or other body and any body corporate, and the heirs, executors, administrators, curator; and assigns or other legal representatives of such person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;

Newfoundland Income War Tax 1917 Act 2. (d) "person" means any individual or person and any syndicate, trust, association or other body and any body corporate, and the heirs, executors, administrators, curator; and assigns or other legal representatives of such person. according to the law;

[2] Patrick O’Flaherty, “LUNDRIGAN, JAMES,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 6, University of Toronto/ Université Laval, 2003–, accessed April 28, 2023, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/lundrigan_james_6E.html.

[3] R v Hampden (1637) 3 State Tr 826

[4] Verb (tr) property law to deprive of seisin; wrongfully dispossess of a freehold interest in land.

[5] William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:134–35, 140—41 1765 III.

[6] British North America Act 1949, 1949 CHAPTER 22 12 13 and 14 Geo 6 §2.

[7] Ibid §7 & §9.

[8] Ibid §11 a. & b.

[9] Ibid §27 (1)

[10] Ibid §26 (a)

[11] Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, 1950 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1951] SCR 31, https://canlii.ca/t/22rw9 , retrieved on 2023-04-28

[12] Canada (Attorney General) / Ontario (Attorney General), 1937 CanLII 362 (UK JCPC), https://canlii.ca/t/grlg9 , retrieved on 2023-04-28

[13] Rights of British America: Thomas Jefferson 1774 https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=113

[14] Duties in American Colonies Act 1765 (5 Geo. 3. c. 12)

[15] Proceedings of the Congress at New York – TUESDAY, October 22, 1765, A. M.

© Desmond McGrath

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Desmond McGrath

Desmond is a Petroleum Engineer by training with a BSc. (Honors) from Montana Tech as well as two technical diplomas in the area of Hydraulics, Instrumentation and Petroleum Technology... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Desmond McGrath: Click here

More by this author

 

Stephen Stone
The most egregious lies Evan McMullin and the media have told about Sen. Mike Lee

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
Flashback: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Cliff Kincaid
Making Russia great again

Pete Riehm
Is Joe Biden being slowly thrown overboard?

Curtis Dahlgren
The real Tom Jefferson

Tom DeWeese
Fighting back at the local level

Cherie Zaslawsky
The Malone controversy: Part one

Steve A. Stone
What does the 'common sense' man want?

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Revelation Chapter 17: Babylon revealed – A warning for today

Linda Kimball
Psalm 50: 21-22: Holy God to the depraved: NOW do you see the stupidity, depravity, and evil in your hearts?

Peter Lemiska
The real threat to our Democracy

Jerry Newcombe
And lead us not into temptation

Tom DeWeese
Cancel Culture using the pseudo-ailment 'eco-anxiety' to cure the non-existence of manmade global warming/climate change

Pete Riehm
Finally, a Republican with backbone
  More columns

Cartoons


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites