Access to Information
March 16, 2003
Elinor Caplan
Minister of National Revenue
Re:
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency letter deciding to vacate
Ascertained Forfeitures & Seizures for:
Art Mainil – dated January 10th, 2003
Andrew McMechan – dated January 15th, 2003
Ron Duffy – amended February 24th, 2003
Re:
Elinor Caplan’s response to Maurice Vellacott dated January 20th,
2003
Re:
Access to Information Documents #1160, #957, #1596, #1233 and #1231
As of January 20th, 2003 you stated
your final decision is pending. As
you can see, letters vacating these forfeitures and seizures were received
10 days before you responded to Maurice Vellacott!
There are no provisions in the Customs Act to
vacate Ascertained Forfeitures or Seizures.
This would appear to be a malicious attempt to pervert justice and
prevent the farmers from appealing to the higher Federal Court.
No one appears willing to take the
responsibility to render a decision.
Failure to issue decisions in these matters has resulted in my
being jailed for 34 days in the Lethbridge Correctional Facility.
The Criminal 114 charge of Failure to Place a
Seized Vehicle in the Custody of a Customs Officer hinges directly on
whether or not the seizure was legal.
I was jailed never having been able to defend myself on the
legality of this seizure!
Document 1160 goes on to say that not only
were farmers denied their right to appeal to the Federal Court on a civil
matter, they were denied the right to a jury trial on the criminal matter.
Initially farmers were charged with theft when removing their own
seized vehicles. By dropping
the theft charges which were indictable and allowed the accused the option
to proceed by way of a jury trail (under the criminal code, the Crown
reverted to summary conviction under the Customs Act where they elected
Judge alone. An obvious
attempt to manipulate the outcome of the prosecutions and justice.
Document 957 obtained from Access to
Information shows adjudications will be upholding the enforcement actions
and will render final decisions.
Regarding the letter amended February 24th,
2003, could you please advise what exactly constitutes legal complexities
and ongoing sensitivities? Could
it be the ongoing failure to disclose all relevant information and
evidence on the ongoing trials in Western Canada, and to the 13 farmers
who went to jail in Alberta!
Document 1596:
“During the last year
several instances of non-compliance have been identified in North
Western Ontario with regards to large quantities of grain being exported
from the area without the required permits.
Revenue Canada has expressed this concern to the CWB, who has in
turn replied that by and large the exporters are clients of the CWB and
that the exported grain, despite not having a permit, was purchased
through the Wheat Board” system, thereby causing no detriment to its
pool accounts. Although this may be true, the contravention is
still one of not reporting the export and of not presenting the required
permit. The quantities of grain are enormous and the optics of the
situation are such that questions may arise as to why a prairie farmer
is being prosecuted for not presenting a license to export 10 tons of
grain to the U.S., while a large corporation can export tens of
thousands of tons of grain from Canada without a license and without
consequences.
While these large corporations were exporting
tens of thousands of tonnes of grain untouched, a Yorkton, SK farmer on
march 1st, 1996 (Document 1160) was maliciously harassed!
Even though he possessed a CWB permit, his truck was seized and a
$1500 Ascertained Forfeiture issued!
Then he was systematically denied the right after 7 years to appeal
to the Federal Court.
Farmers in 1996 were unable to obtain export
permits from the CWB. They
relied on accredited exporters like Sask. Pool for these permits.
Initial weights were assigned to the permits and final paperwork
completed upon obtaining final unload.
It was not the responsibility of the farmers to apply to the CWB
for permits or assign initial weights.
If in fact the farmer had a CWB export permit,
it was totally irrelevant to Canada Customs what the truck weights were.
It was the responsibility of the accredited exporter to assign
final weights and forward buy back money to the CWB.
We know that David Sawatzky was acquitted on
May 17, 1996 for Failing to Provide a CWB Export Permit.
We know that on Monday, June 23rd
1997 in the Connaught Building in Ottawa, Mike Hadley revealed that what
constitutes a report in writing had never been specified, reported or
gazetted.
We know that the 114 Customs charge of Failing
to Place a Seized Vehicle in the Custody of a Customs Officer was based on
the vehicle seizure and that the seizures are now being vacated.
I consider this attempt to vacate these
seizures and forfeitures an obstruction of justice and illegal and will be
continuing on to the next step.
Ron Duffy
CC:
100+ farmers falsely prosecuted and persecuted
www.farmersforjustice.com
David Sawatzky
PS: Larry possessed a CWB export permit in the
Northgate incident. Truck
weight reporting & forwarding of buy back money were the
responsibility of the accredited exporter!
It’s clear the farmers could not satisfy Revenue Canada, no
matter what they did. Revenue
Canada was going to stop these farmers at all costs!
The only one not complying with the Customs
Act is the Minister! What
good is a Customs Act if the Minister refuses to comply and issue
decisions? Will the refusal
of the Minister to issue decisions result in even more Western Canadian
farmers being jailed?
What should we do with the Minister of
National Revenue?
|
