| [back to articles] |
Print Article  E-Mail to a Friend 
|
|
Category: About TrueMan of the Tuck Clan (13 articles) Click here to see more in this category...
To all that believe in Freedom, Truth, Justice and Peace, Jul 27, 2010 To all that believe in Freedom, Truth, Justice and Peace, We have a major problem in our county's government corporations. Our Federal government Public Servants have increasingly lost sight of the "Servant" part of their statutory duties and obligations. There is no sector more important to the Canadian economy than micro-small family enterprises and yet, more often than not the Canadian Federal Public Servants that we are the principle investor in and by virtue of being the only voting shareholder in the Canadian government corporations their "Masters" become destructive in an arrogant, abusive and unlawful manner. I need your help to assist me and other Canadian based micro-small family businesses is defending our De Jure English Rule of Common Law rights, Freedoms and Liberties. There is an escalating problem in the vast maze of sole and aggregate corporations that make up our Canadian government. Attached is one such example that has just occurred to my family business. Please note we define micro as being 20 or less employees, contractors and family members regularly involved in the family business. Your kind assistance in going to my firm's website – www.tucksprofessionalservices.com and sending your E-Question to your Canadian MP and a copy to all other MPs and also Senators would be greatly appreciated. My firm, Tuck's Professional Services, is a leading "Protector" of individuals and micro-small family enterprises. It is terrible what our Federal Public "Servants" are doing to us, their "Masters". Please see Exhibits 1 & 2 as examples of our "Servants" now claiming to be our "Masters". These are obviously Canadian Federal bureaucratic internal culture systemic flaws that need to be investigated and appropriate corrective action taken immediately. If you need professional help, please let me know. My e-mail is: Trueman@tucksprofessionalservices.com and my phone is 613-968-3007 and my fax is 613-968-3215. Yours for Freedom, Truth, Justice and Peace,
Trueman Tuck By Purolator Facsimile: (613) 925-2899 Phone: (613) 925-4225 July 21, 2010 Page(s): 5 plus Brief Canada Border Services Agency File: TT v. CBSA Recourse Directorate Attention: Ms. Anabelle Allain, Adjudicator Dear Ms. Allain: Re: Request for Ministerial Decision CS – 60194/95927 Notice of Penalty Assessment: February 24, 2010 Penalty Assessment Number: 95927 Penalty Amount: $100.00 Office Code: 0439 Issuing Officer: 16203 I am in receipt of your letter of June 25, 2010 enclosing the written Notice of Reasons for Action and the Issuing Officer Report of February 24, 2010 [See Exhibit 1]. First and most important we need to get the legal entities involved in this clearly identified and provide the historic background to what the real issues are here. The Unlawful Prejudicial Targeting I object that when the issuing officer did a title search of Trueman Tuck and Tuck's Discount Vitamins in the ACROSS system that I was the subject of a target for importing good through the For many years, I have been importing 50 to 100 shipments each year. Over the last few years, only a few shipments have been seized and unlawfully interfered with. This has only happened to me a half a dozen times. In fact, Mr. Perry Birch was the first federal Public Employee to deliberately seize and hold consecutive shipments in the manner that happened in In a NCC Risk Management Committee Issue Sheet of September 9, 2003, a strategy was implemented by the ONOC, NCC and legal services to coordinate an effort to remove a natural health product from entering the Canadian market. In this meeting, I was named personally as an individual associated with the Friends of Freedom challenging the Food & Drugs Act. [See Exhibit 2] Due to my high profile as a Traditional Holistic Health Care advocate for small businesses and myself, personally, I know that there is a coordinate conspiracy to destroy me, my reputation and my family's financial interests. Implications of using Importer Numbers Tuck's Organic Farm & Sanctuary is a sole proprietorship operated by myself. As indicated earlier, Tuck's Discount Vitamins is a corporate operating division of 6406661 Canada Inc. I have no knowledge of what business numbers are on the CBSA computer. Tuck's Discount Vitamins started in 1995 and has been operated under various legal entities over the years. To my knowledge, only Tuck's Discount Vitamins has been actively operating since August 1st, 2008 under the operating division of 6406661 CANADA Inc. My Corporation and I are not involved in any criminal activity and always have been completely up front about whether or not we will agree to comply with any government demands. I believe it is the People who own the vast maze of sole and aggregate corporations making up the federal government and not the other way around. Violation of section 15 of the Criminal Code of Canada Section 15 of the Criminal Code of Canada 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 the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs." The Black's Law Dictionary defines de facto as actual; existing in fact; having effect even though not formally or legally recognized. The acts and regulations of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canada Border Services Agency and Health In R v. Chong (1909), 11 W.L.R. 231, 14 B.C.R. 275 (CA) [See Exhibit 3], Irving, J stated: "Among the normal rights which are available to every British subject against all the world are: (1) personal safety and freedom; (2) one's good name; (3) the enjoyment of the advantages ordinarily open to all the inhabitants of the country, e.g., the unmolested pursuit of one's trade or occupation and free use of the highways; (4) freedom from malicious vexation by legal process; and (5) to one's own property." For decades, my legal position has been that I am acting as an import broker for For many years, I have claimed that federal bureaucrats have been in violation of my section 15 rights under the Criminal Code of Canada pursuant to the de jure English Rule of Common Law, as well as, the freedoms and liberties under the Canadian Written and Unwritten Constitution, the Implied Bill of Rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. The Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health In Wrigley Canada v. Canada, 2000, CanLII 15485 (F.C.A.), it states in para. 10: "…There is nothing in either the statutory definition of "food" and "drugs", or the legislative scheme as a whole, that precludes a food from also becoming a drug if a representation is made that otherwise brings it within the definition of a drug in section 2. The categories are not mutually exclusive." [See Exhibit 4] This matter was first addressed and continues to be addressed with the Canada Border Services Agency from August 2006 onward. [See Exhibit 5] It has also been my legal opinion that trade and commerce activities are within provincial jurisdiction and not federal jurisdiction. Sections 92 (13) & (16) of the British North American Act, 1867 state: "13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province…16.Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province." Just because an Ontario-based business imports products, it does not create federal jurisdiction. Any attempts to claim jurisdiction is de facto and not valid. Scrutiny Challenges Since the implementation of the Natural Health Products Regulations, the regulatory Schedule 'F' and the DIN regulations since 2004 to present day, I have continually challenged the lawful and regulatory basis with the Joint Senate and House of Commons Scrutiny of Regulations [See Exhibit 6]. Violation of Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Section 39(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada states: "Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary." I was in contact with the Canada Border Services Agency in Section 337 of the Criminal Code of Canada states: "Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or in right of a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does not demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years." Section 465(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada states: "Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy: (b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable (i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or (ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;" The sequence of events with the incident in NAFTA/WTO I disagree with the issuing officer's report wherein it states a penalty should have been issued under C071 because I was aware of the requirements of Health In fact, I disagree that any inspections, if required, should have been done by Health It has also been my legal position that under the Customs Act, that it is ultimately the legal responsibility of the Canada Services Border Agency to determine the lawfulness of any recommendation provided to them by any federal regulatory authority to seize and return my shipments. Any action to seize and return taken by Canada Border Services Agency must rely on the Customs Act. Health AMP Provisions I disagree with the Canada Border Services position on AMPS pertaining to their offence penalties. In order to have my funds seized, I must be guilty of something first. Under de jure English Rule of Common Law, there are only two types of offences, criminal and civil. Under our Constitution, all criminal offences are under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to sections 91(27) and all civil offences are under the exclusive provincial jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(4). In My other position is that it is unlawful to demand a pre-payment of an AMP fine under threat of denying legal due process to access a fair and proper hearing to determine a party's guilt or innocence. Conclusion As earlier indicated in my letter, due to my sui juris Private Law legal capacity, I cannot be forced to comply with de facto demands when I have done my lawful due diligence as much as possible in determining my lawful obligations and compliance. I believe that there cannot be any civilized Rule of Law in I would respectfully request the immediate dismissal of all charges against me and refund of the deposited $600.00. In accordance with section 337 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I demand the immediate return of my property, being the $600.00. Failure to do so on or before close of business on July 29, 2010, will result in me pursuing laying criminal private information. If I am required to take further legal actions, it will be solely against the Canada Border Services Agency, its agents, servants and sub-delegates. Yours for Freedom, Truth, Justice and Peace, Trueman Tuck INDEX
[back to articles] |