Scott Duncan
Do you even read the articles you cite?
LOOK at the NON STATEMENT that is the "conclusion":
"Here the key proposition is, as set out by Mr. Justice Audette, above, that "It is a matter of elementary law that when a statute appears on its face to have been duly passed by a competent legislature, the Courts must assume that all things have rightly done in respect of its passage through the legislature, and cannot entertain any argument that there is a defect of Parliamentary procedure lying behind the Act as a matter of fact.". Given all of this, the Income Tax Act, as set out in the Revised Statutes of Canada, referred to above, cannot be impeached by the Courts. Thus the case of the Plaintiff, as to the existence of a valid and enforceable Income Tax Act, is one which plainly, obviously and beyond doubt cannot succeed."
It APPEARS that it's SOMETHING FROM THE QUEEN'S PRINTER and then it's nothing but BELIEF and PRESUMPTION.
Seriously dude, can you even read? Are you THAT easily bullshited?