Series 1 Part 9: MUNICIPAL FRAUD

16 Ways Municipalities Victimize Us Under the Color of Law

Be sure to also check out Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine of our UN INVASION of CANADA – ‘Peace Bait’ series and Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight of our MUNICIPAL FRAUD series.

And now, we continue with our MUNICIPAL FRAUD content. In this newsletter, we will begin looking at 15 of the main ways that property owners are swindled.

We kindly ask that when sharing this research, you appropriately credit People-United, and point people towards our Substack newsletters. Decades have gone into collecting this information and there is much more to come.

#1 Stealing our given and surnames to keep us ‘incorporated’

The Canadian Styles Manual (archived here) is very specific about how all legislation, government communication (on and off the Internet) is to be framed in terms of grammar and styling, such as capitalization.

These rules are not a matter of opinion, but of government directive and policy that are referenced by any nation doing business with Canada. IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS REMOVED Chapter 4 of The Canadian Style on Capitalization from the Internet, see here.

Here is what it says about how YOU the human being, is to have YOUR name styled in all official communication. NOTE how personal names of individual human beings are not reversed, all capitalized or corrupted with commas:

4.03 Personal names

(a) Capitalize proper nouns and epithets that accompany or replace them:

• John Diefenbaker

• Margaret Thatcher

• Peter the Great

• the Sun King

(b) When O’ forms part of a proper noun, it and the first letter after the apostrophe are capitalized:

• O’Brien

• O’Malley

(c) When the particle Mc or Mac forms part of a name, the letter M is capitalized. Capitalization and spacing of the letters that follow may differ and individual preferences should be respected:

• McDonald or MacDonald or Mac Donald or Macdonald

(d) Individual preferences regarding the capitalization and spacing of articles and particles in French or foreign names should also be respected when they can be ascertained.1 The following are correct forms:

• Walter de la Mare

• Ethel Vandenberg

• John Dos Passos

• Cornelius Van Horne

• Pierre de Savoye

• Paul DeVillers

(e) In the case of historical figures, treatment in English may differ from that in the original language, and no real standard appears to exist. Consistency in treating a particular name (such as Leonardo da Vinci, Luca della Robbia or Vincent van Gogh) is all that can be aimed for. In some cases, the most familiar form of the name omits the particle entirely:

• Beethoven (Ludwig van Beethoven)

• Torquemada (Tomás de Torquemada)

(f) Capitalize a nickname (a word or phrase used as part of, or instead of, a personal name):

• the Chief

• the Rocket

• the Iron Lady

Similarly, capitalize names of fictitious or anonymous persons, and names used as personifications:

• Johnny Canuck

• Paul Bunyan

• the Caped Crusader

• John Bull

From WHY-YOU-ARE-DEAD (archived here):

• “In law, a legally DEAD man has no rights, even though he/she is still alive. While you are legally dead, the administrator- trustee, has total control over your estate, (Birthright ownership over the mineral and energy wealth of the country you were born on) because you are assumed dead... If you were assumed legally dead at such a young age and you never returned back to your true correct birthright legal standing without making a will or an agreement of compensation in order to enter into their fraud, (Because you were too young to know and you were never told), your whole life as an assumed legally dead “person” will be under the total control of the person that perpetrated the fraud against you in the first place.

• If the registrar general of your birth certificate is a banker of the foreign private Rothschild’s banking system, then that is your master within their legally dead world, you left your real Christ.

• The world of Mamon and usury [interest on loans] is the underworld of the legally dead and if your equity dies (Your real body) while you remain in their system of the legally dead, so does your true God-given rights that was only given to the living, die along with it.

• To let go of the underworld gutter of Mamon is to reclaim your “life” but too many people love the life of the underworld- mamon too much to ever let go of the legal titles of the world of the legally dead... Once you let go of the legal title, the equity returns on the condition you know who you “really” are, as in your real name, your real date of birth and your real number in registry... Being “BIRTHED” into the underworld is being birthed into legal death.”
  ~ Justinian Deception

When, as an adult you take all the steps necessary to establish your Claim of Right (an official term used in the Criminal Code of Canada) to your given name and status as a living human being, the corporate municipalities will ignore you. When you stand on your declared status in court, they will also ignore you and move the reference to Claim of Right to another section of the Code to deceive you.

See Series #2 NAME THEFT to learn exactly how it has been done to men and women for over a century. Also, we will publish a separate Series about how the corporations masquerading as government have reversed the status of the beneficiary (living men and women) to that of Trustee and the government Trustee to the status of ‘beneficiary’…all through legal trickery, fraud and corruption. You will then learn more about why it is important to reverse the status from an incorporated slave (legal entity) back to sovereign human being and to become once again, the true beneficiary of the Trust that is supposed to be lawfully and truthfully managed for the living man and woman’s benefit, and not the Government Trustee’s benefit. Yes, it is complicated because the government is acting in dishonour, but once you ‘get it’, you will already feel the chains of enslavement breaking off.

In the meantime, you need to read all our posts so that you don’t jump ahead and confuse yourself or take unhelpful actions.

#2 Municipality acts as Agent without property owner consent and registering private property title to itself

To facilitate the unlawful transfer of private property to the control of a municipality, the for-profit corporate provincial government called Ontario, Province of made it possible for municipal councils to pass a by-law giving themselves the power to register lands into their corporation’s name under the Land Titles Act that was framed by a scandal-ridden, for-profit, private corporation called Teranet.

Please see Series #2 PROPERTY THEFT to be released in the future, for shocking details about how your legal title to the property YOU paid for is controlled by a private corporation, TERANET.

The fact that you are left only with equitable title, but not benefiting from the trust arrangement they have forced you into, is well beyond the scope of this discussion, but will be detailed in a Series.

To summarize: According to Section 9 of the Municipal Act, after incorporating the private property owner into its corporation, a municipality then has the privilege of operating as a natural person/individual. What individual do you know of that can just, without your knowledge or consent, make themselves your ‘agent’? But that is exactly what the Land Titles Act does.

Under the Land Titles Act, Ontario municipalities are given the ‘right’ and ‘power’ to take constructive possession of the legal title by making itself the ‘agent’ of the rightful property owner without the owner’s consent.

Below is the relevant provision of the legalized fraud called the Land Titles Act and note how the official goes from being referred to as a government registrar to being referred to as a corporate ‘director’:

Land Titles Act, RSO 1990, c L.5

Application by municipal council

31 (1) The council of any municipality to which this Act applies may by by-law authorize an application to be made to the land registrar to have any land that is within the municipality registered under this Act.

No consent required

(2) For the purpose of an application under subsection (1), the municipality shall be deemed to be the agent of the owners and other persons having an interest in the land designated in the by-law and it is not necessary to obtain the consent of such owners and other persons to the application.

However, as we discuss in Series #2 PROPERTY THEFT and in earlier sections of this series, the Municipal Act, 2001 limits the power and authority of municipalities in Ontario to those of a natural person, and a natural person (individual) certainly does not have the right to control property it does not own or make itself ‘agent’ of the rightful owner without the owner’s consent.

#3 Imposing Property Taxes is Not Supported by Law!

First we are going to discuss the ‘dog’s breakfast’ called Canadian property taxation legislation that fails to properly define important terms and leaves one to presume that private property (not involved in commerce) is taxable, when there is no support for this action.

Then we will take you to the US property tax information that defines and delineates between personal property, private property, defines terms such as private person, private, property tax and real property. We will provide you with an excellent US document titled ‘OptingOutofPropertyTax’ that you can compare to the Ontario corporate wealth transfer under the colour of law that passes as Ontario property tax laws.

Canadians cannot use the US laws and process, of course, but what OptingOutofPropertyTax provides are legal definitions recognized around the world, but hidden from Canadians.

Ontario, Canada Property Tax Landscape

Canadian municipalities are for-profit corporations created by incorporating all inhabitants into a corporation without their knowledge or consent (see Part Six for an example). But the criminal corporation -- the purported Government of the Province (the province is legally a nation-state since 1931) -- that created all these municipalities that have incorporated all inhabitants into their business in order to control them as human assets, is itself a fraud. Please see our upcoming Series #3 CONSTITUTION/CHARTER FRAUD for the details.

Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25

Definitions:

“municipality” means a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated

Once incorporated into their business enterprise, all incorporated individuals are now considered by these corporate de facto authorities to be ‘officers’ of the corporation and therefore under the complete control and jurisdiction of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and other authorities running the corporate municipality.

The for-profit provincial corporation called Ontario, Province of -- that is listed on the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) under various names and is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario -- created 444 unaccountable corporations in Ontario called municipalities using legal frauds called Municipal Acts. There is a SEC listing for CANADA, government of, as well as other names referring to the corporation we know as CANADA – see here.

The most recent Act called the Municipal Act, 2001, makes a fictitious legal entity (corporation) equal in power and authority to a human being.

The provincial corporation uses the familiar name of every town and city to trick the population. By using the name of the City, they trick you into believing that the Corporation of the CITY of XOXO (or where ever you live) is the town or city landmass, when its merely a corrupt, greedy business, acting illegally in imposing property taxes…

Example: City of Toronto and Corporation of the CITY of Toronto. Read about word deception called legalese here.

Municipalities horde massive amounts of surplus, but they never mention this surplus in their budgets, which are fictitious and created to trick the population into thinking that the municipality is always short of money. Justin Trudeau did tell us that budgets balance themselves, didn’t he?

See here the C.D. Howe Institute Report on how tricky, creative reporting of Budgets and Financial Statements ensure that the general public are misled about the true state of municipal finances.

Surpluses amounted to $207 Billion by the end of 2018. You can take a look at the 2018 surpluses for Ontario municipalities on the document titled ‘EX 2’.

While we are being swindled out of our wealth and resources by greedy for-profit corporations disguised as ‘government’, they are rewarding their corporate employees for going along with this swindle.

For news that the list of earners of $100,000 or more for 2020 was a greater than 10% increase at a time when those swindled by illegal taxes are facing bankruptcy and property loss, click here. Even small corporate municipalities of 50,000 people have 140 employees making well over $100,000 /year, with many other employees paid just under that and waiting to be given a raise putting them onto the Sunshine List. See more lists here of salaries of municipal employees where you can search by name, position.

**** THE MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001 SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO IMPOSE TAXES, but again, loopholes were installed in the legislation so that municipalities could impose taxes and get away with it.

Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25

Scope of powers

8 (1) The powers of a municipality under this or any other Act shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues.

Powers of a natural person

9 A municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act.

Restrictions, financial matters

17 (1) Sections 9, 10 and 11 do not authorize a municipality to,

(a) impose taxes;

(b) borrow or invest money or sell debt;

(c) incur debt without borrowing money for the purpose of obtaining long-term financing of any capital undertaking;

(d) enter into agreements for the purpose of minimizing costs or financial risk associated with the incurring of debt;

(e) make a grant or a loan;

(f) take any other prescribed financial action;

(g) become a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada); or

(h) as an insolvent person, make an assignment for the general benefit of creditors under section 49 of

the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) or make a proposal under section 50 of that Act.

** Note: ‘its affairs’ refer to the corporation’s business affairs since the municipality is a for-profit corporation

** Note: Municipalities are supposed to make an application to the federal government for the payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) that they are illegally imposing on property owners but they make the application in secret so that no one knows which insiders are getting away without paying property taxes. The application can be seen here.

Municipalities destroy the lists of properties for which the taxes are paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund immediately after the federal government makes the payment, so we cannot know who are not paying property taxes. Likewise, once the money has been paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, all records of to whom it was paid is destroyed.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. M-13) Definitions

2 (1) In this Act,

federal property means, subject to subsection (3),

(a) real property and immovables owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada that are under the administration of a minister of the Crown,

(b) real property and immovables owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada that are, by virtue of a lease to a corporation included in Schedule III or IV, under the management, charge and direction of that corporation,

(c) immovables held under emphyteusis by Her Majesty in right of Canada that are under the administration of a minister of the Crown,

(d) a building owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada that is under the administration of a minister of the Crown and that is situated on tax exempt land owned by a person other than Her Majesty in right of Canada or administered and controlled by Her Majesty in right of a province, and

(e) real property and immovables occupied or used by a minister of the Crown and administered and controlled by Her Majesty in right of a province; (propriété fédérale)

Property not included in the definition federal property

(3) For the purposes of the definition federal property in subsection (1), federal property does not include

(a) any structure or work, unless it is

(i) a building designed primarily for the shelter of people, living things, fixtures, personal property or movable property,

(ii) an outdoor swimming pool,

(iii) a golf course improvement,

(iv) a driveway for a single-family dwelling,

(v) paving or other improvements associated with employee parking, or

(vi) an outdoor theatre;

(b) any structure, work, machinery or equipment that is included in Schedule II;

(c) any real property or immovable developed and used as a park and situated within an area defined as urban by Statistics Canada, as of the most recent census of the population of Canada taken by Statistics Canada, other than national parks of Canada, national marine parks of Canada, national park reserves of Canada, national marine park reserves of Canada, national historic sites of Canada, national battlefields or heritage canals;

(d) any Indian reserve, or any land referred to in any of paragraphs (c) to (e) of the definition taxing authority in subsection 2(1), except for the part

(i) that is occupied for residential purposes by an employee of Her Majesty in right of Canada who would not, but for that employment, live on that reserve or land, or

(ii) that is occupied by a minister of the Crown;

(e) any real property or immovable for which an original Crown grant has not issued, except to the extent that it

(i) is designated for a specific use by or under an Act of Parliament, or

(ii) is used by an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act or an Inuk and is prescribed under paragraph 9(1)(e);

(f) any real property for which an original Crown grant has not issued, except to the extent that it

(i) is reserved in the records of the Department of Indigenous Services at Whitehorse or Yellowknife for the use of a department or an agency of the Government of Canada, and is either situated within a municipality or, in the case of real property that is not situated within a municipality, used in accordance with the reservation, or

(ii) is situated within a municipality and is reserved in the records of the Department of Indigenous Services at Whitehorse or Yellowknife for the use of an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act or an Inuk;

(g) any real property or immovable developed or used as a public highway that, in the opinion of the Minister, does not provide, as its primary function, immediate access to real property or immovables owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada; or

(h) unless otherwise prescribed, any real property or immovable leased to or occupied by a person or body, whether incorporated or not, that is not a department.

** Note: The hundreds of billions of dollars deposited to the federal Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) belongs to all Canadians because the revenue produced by our landmass Canada belongs to the People and not the corporation. The corporation is only supposed to be a service provider and manage the landmass in the interests of the People (the true beneficiaries of the trust) as a Trustee. Instead, the Trustee is stealing the money from the beneficiary. Learn about the CRF here and from a video here.

***ESSENTIAL READING – see here to understand the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) and how the government uses trick language in the rules and outright misrepresentation to deprive Canadians of their share of the wealth earned by the landmass Canada.

Read our upcoming Series #2 CODE ‘96’ DECEPTION to learn how the government not only deprives us of our share of the wealth of the nation but also makes us pay for what is supposed to be provided free by the government out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

In fact, the corporation (Trustee) engages in fraud, theft, extortion, embezzlement, coercion and racketeering, robbing us of 90% or more of the wealth of the nation every year. One of those ways is by NOT having the property taxes of primary residences and farms paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund (the trust bank account holding money for us, the beneficiaries).

E-transfer tips within Canada:
ADMIN-PU@proton.me

#3 Private Property: municipal property taxes on private property appears to be illegal

The legal term ‘private property’ is used in the City of Toronto Act, 2006, where the Act also refers to the City of Toronto having the power and authority of a natural person (an individual). At section 13(1) it states the City of Toronto has no power or authority to impose taxes, just as it does in the Municipal Act 2001. The term ‘private property’ is either used, or a provision implies a reference to private property: see sections 4, 12(5)(c),(d) and (g), sections 19, 48(2), 49(2), 50, and 113.2(1). So ‘private property’ is a legal term.

In addition, in the City of Toronto Act, Ontario Regulation 121/07 Traditional Municipal Taxes, Limits and Collection you see reference to the collection process on specified property classes - it makes no reference to the legal term ‘private property’, or to private residential property. It has a reference only to residential class in which there are 3 residential property classes: commercial, industrial and optional commercial or industrial property.

Ontario Reg 121-07 also states: “residential property” means property in the residential/farm property class, the multi-residential property class or the new multi-residential property class prescribed under the Assessment Act. O. Reg. 121/07, s. 12 (7).

Reg 121-07 does not refer to private property or private residences.

While private homes and property not used for commercial purposes can be given a class designation, that does not automatically mean that it can be legally and lawfully taxed by a private corporation (municipality). There can be no denying that if a living man or woman’s private home can be taxed by a corporation we are truly slaves on a corporate plantation.

Now, let’s look at the property value assessment legislation:

Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c A.31,

1 (1) “person” includes a corporation, partnership, bridge authority, agent or trustee, and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law; [our note: includes means ‘means’ and in this case does not ‘mean’ individual men and women since they are not listed in the definition]

Property classes

7 (1) The Minister shall prescribe classes of real property for the purposes of this Act. 1997, c. 5, s. 5.

Same

(2) The classes prescribed by the Minister shall include, but are not restricted to, the following:

1. The residential property class. [remember that this includes the corporate ownership of single-family dwellings, semi-detached and townhouses and used for commercial rental purposes]

2. The multi-residential property class. [involves buildings with greater than 7 dwelling units/apartments].

3. The commercial property class.

4. The industrial property class.

5. The pipe line property class.

6. The farm property class.

7. The managed forests property class. 1997, c. 5, s. 5; 1997, c. 29, s. 4; 2002, c. 22, s. 3.

There is NO definition of residential property class and there is no reference to private property in the Assessment Act 1990. They let us presume that ‘residential property class’ automatically includes our private homes and lands.

To get a definition of ‘residential property’ you need to go to Regulation 282/98 made under the Assessment Act, 1990.

Ontario Regulation 282/98

Under Ontario Regulation 282/98, the ‘residential property class’ includes:

• Single-family homes, semi-detached homes, and condominiums used for non-business purposes. [but does not distinguish between private non-commercial use and commercial ownership for rental income]

• Properties with fewer than seven self-cont ained units (kitchen, bathroom, separate entrance).

• Land used for residential purposes that does not meet the threshold for the multi-residential class.

• Aircraft hangars used exclusively to store private recreational aircraft, provided the owner applies annually and meets specific criteria.

Properties with seven or more self-contained units are classified separately in the multi-residential property class, not the residential class.

We don’t know what the definition of multi-residential property class is doing under an education act, but Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, specifically Ontario Regulation 394/98, specifies that the new multi-residential property class is prescribed for the purposes of the definition of “residential property” in section 257.5 of the Assessment Act.

Residential property

2. The following class of real property is prescribed for the purposes of clause (b) of the definition of “residential property” in section 257.5 of the Act:

1. A property class that the council of a municipality opts to have apply in the municipality under regulations made under the Assessment Act that contains property that would otherwise be in the farm, managed forests, residential or multi-residential property class prescribed under that Act.

2. The new multi-residential property class prescribed under the Assessment Act. O. Reg. 134/17, s. 1; O. Reg. 261/17, s. 1.

So private residences may be classified as residential class properties for value assessment, but no where can we find that private property can be taxed as can be commercial and industrial properties.

***Despite Section 17(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 stating municipalities have no authority or power to tax, if you challenge the tax bill you get for your private residence (non-commercial property), the municipality will claim that Sections 289 (about Budgets), 290 (about Budgets) and 304 (about using a collection agency) provide them indirectly with authority to impose taxes that section 17(1)(a) directly states they do not have.

Apparently, the municipalities are allowed to claim the existence of authority wording that the rest of us do not see. It seems that they can presume an authority and power to tax private property if they do up a Budget, even though there is no statement exactly stating they have this authority to tax, and one statement exactly states they do not have this authority or power to tax private properties.

There appears to be no case law to clarify how on one hand the legislation can specifically deprive municipalities of specific powers and authorities to impose taxes (section 17(1)(a)), but on the other hand, municipalities can claim that the pathway to such unstated authority is to be interpreted from sections 289, 290 and 304 that don’t mention a single word about power or authority, only budgeting process.

The Assessment Act classifies properties, and the Municipal Act, 2001 purportedly provides an authority to tax our private homes and lands that we can’t find stated directly and unequivocally.

Private homes are therefore classed as residential properties and assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and taxed by the municipality at a ratio of 1.0, forming the largest portion of municipal tax revenue, yet there is no power or authority stated in any statute that permits the taxing of private non-commercial property regardless the class that MPAC states they are in. All that is mentioned clearly is the taxing of commercial and industrial and multi-residential properties (greater than 7 rental units). There is NO mention anywhere of any power or authority to impose taxes on a private non-commercial residence.

We can see that if a corporation or business owns a bunch of single-family dwellings, or semi-detached or townhouses and rent them out, then these are commercial rental operations and should be taxed, but private homes not used commercially should never be taxed by a for-profit corporation like a municipality.

Municipal Act, 2001

1 Definitions:

“municipality” means a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated

299 (1) In this section,

“municipality” includes,

(a) a local board,

(b) a conservation authority,

(c) any board, commission or local authority exercising any power with respect to municipal purposes, excluding school purposes, in unorganized territory, and

(d) any other body performing a public function designated by the Minister. 2001, c. 25, s. 299 (1).

In other words, inhabitants of any designated geographical area have been incorporated into local boards, conservation authority, and other ‘bodies’ – no wonder these corporations all act like they we are their slaves and they can collect rent in the form of property taxes to live on our own private property.

Click here (be patient with the download) for the response from one Ontario municipality to a property owner, claiming that other sections of the Municipal Act authorize the imposition of property tax, when in fact the referenced sections do not remotely deal with authorization, only process.

This shows that municipalities deal with their illegal actions by pretending section 17(1)(a) does not exist and by entirely misdirecting and misrepresenting the true provisions. This of course is fraud and theft, and it is all done willfully and deliberately.

Court Case to force compliance (shared with People-United by a patriot)

A patriot tried to hold the Corporation of the City of Belleville responsible for illegally imposing property taxes and refusing to make application to the federal government for a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). [The case documents are here.]

The corporate governments had guaranteed in 1976 that they would end slavery in all its forms, which includes the forcing of individuals to hand over the results of their personal labor to politicians disguised as ‘government’.

The matter first went before the Federal Court in Ottawa where the Judge tried to ridicule the plaintiff and claimed that Parliament could not have meant what the law stated. The Federal Court Judge wrote that it was ‘ridiculous’ to think the PILT legislation meant what the words said. He didn’t disagree that the words said what they said; he just said the logical and reasonable interpretation was ‘ridiculous’.

This Judge’s decision is a gross violation of the rules on interpreting legislation that states a Judge cannot change legislation and must apply the legislation as written.

The Federal Judge’s decision was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (3-Judge panel) which refused to deal with the very clear wording of the legislation and who did everything they could to prevent this information from coming out.

The patriot then applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for Leave to Appeal the injustice of the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal where she asked the Supreme Court to interpret the legislation that clearly applies to private property right across Ontario (and likely across all provinces).

The Supreme Court of Canada intake staff twisted the application’s wording and intent and summarized it as a tax protestor’s appeal and dismissed the application for leave to be heard. Clearly the application for leave was about the wording of the PILT, but these staff are trained to twist everything against self-litigants to benefit the corporate raiders.

This they are doing despite the fact that taxation was to have been completely abolished with the signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1976. [For your convenience we provide the ICCPR here.]

The Supreme Court of Canada stated in Divito v.Canada that the ICCPR was binding on the government.

This is more evidence of what all Canadians have believed for decades: there is no Rule of Law and Judges make unsupportable decisions irrespective of the actual law in order to protect their corporate employers. [See here details about this judicial corruption that we will be dealing with in far more detail when we release our LEGAL FRAUD Series.]

Even though the Municipal Act specifically states they have no authority to IMPOSE property taxes, they do anyway. The for-profit corporations disguised as local governments usually sell the property in tax sales to an insider for far less than what it is worth. Meanwhile, the municipality is supposed to make an application for payment in lieu of taxes to the federal government as the ‘trustee’ of our trust and for the benefit of the taxpayer, the true beneficiary. Since the whole process is ‘secret’ and all records of payments and applications are destroyed as soon as payment is made, no one but insiders know who is getting their taxes covered by a PILT.

When corporate governments can impose taxes and steal a person’s property because it is $10,000 in tax arrears, you know we have long ago returned to the feudal system of property management in Canada. See the recent story (archived here) of how a woman’s home was sold for far less than its actual market value.

Across North America, UN-controlled municipalities have been unpacking their services and taxing them separately.

For example, originally, when property taxes covered all infrastructure and services, the tax was for ‘water and sewer and garbage’, but now it’s listed separately for water, sewer, waste water, recycling, and garbage, the combined total of which far surpasses the original one-amount tax.

The additional tax for waste water is sometimes called ‘rain water’ or ‘storm water repairs’ or other deceptive money-grabbing terms. If you do not pay it, it is attached to your tax roll and charged interest. Yet, municipalities have no authority to IMPOSE taxes, the important word being ‘IMPOSE’, since they are not imposing if you simply pay when you get a notice. Since the property tax is supposed to cover storm systems and repairs, this additional fee/tax is simply due to corruption.

US Property Taxation Landscape

In the US document by Storm Brooks, OptingOutofPropertyTax you get the following legal definitions that you can’t find in Canadian legislation. There is much in the way of legal definitions supported by US Case Decisions:

Property (page 100)

Personal Property: for taxation purposes is a ‘commercial’ property (page 92/93)

Private Property: (page 93/94 and 97)

Personal Property IS NOT Private Property

Private Person (page 96)

Private (page 96)

Property Tax (page 100)

Real Property (page 102) is a commercial term

Resident (page 103)

Residential (page 104)

Situs (page 106)

Taxpayer (page 108):

Note also the definition of “private” in ONTARIO REGULATION 586/06, under the Municipal Act, 2001:

1(1) “private” means, with respect to a work or property, a work or property that is not owned by the municipality or a local board of the municipality;

— End of Series 1 Part 9 MUNICIPAL FRAUD —

In our next MUNICIPAL FRAUD newsletter, we will continue looking at the main ways that property owners are swindled.

Thank you for your attention and any help that you can send our way, from sharing widely to sharing more evidence that you may have with us, or tips or subscriptions. While we could use financial support, it is more important to us that this information gets out to as many people as possible, as fast as possible.

Also, please let us know if any of our hyperlinks have stopped working so that we can fix them. Thank you.

People-United
people-united.ca

E-transfer tips within Canada:
ADMIN-PU@proton.me