EARLY CASE HISTORY
Note from Rotfleisch & Samulovitch, Ontario Tax Law Firm Updated April
Once the Canada Revenue Agency (the Canadian income taxation
department) commences an investigation to look for evidence of tax
evasion, the protections afforded by the Canadian Charter of Rights are
applicable and CRA can no longer use its statutory audit and
investigation powers such as the requirement to provide information set
out in the Income Tax Act.
VERBAL PETITION TO THE PROVINCIAL COURT
GIVEN BY DAVID T. LITTLE, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005
Your Honour, if it is at your esteemed direction, I am certainly ready
to enter a plea.
But if I may have your patient permission, I would like to ask you to
allow a hearing precedent to my trial, so that my legal representation
may present arguments for your adjudication with the prayerful hope
that this Honourable Court may permit a Jury of my Peers to decide this
All Canadians are victimized by universally funded abortion murders,
even those unaware or unconvinced of it being murder. According to
information drawn from Statistics Canada, 2300 classrooms are emptied
and closed each year in Canada by abortion. When we pay taxes of any
kind, even inculpable small children buying a candy bar pay GST,
unknowingly in support of abortion. Therefore I ask your wise and
judicious consideration that this case indeed merits the loftiest of
legal consideration and ought to be decided by the decision of a Jury
of my peers.
I make this request in humility due the circumstances and nature of the
motives of my not filing tax returns for the years, 2000, 2001 and
2002. I love my country very much. Patriotism can be holy and just. But
tax coercion for abortion/murder is an abominable crime.
I cannot be enticed or coerced by this government to believe that the
benefits of worthy and virtuous expenditures to fund ACTS or
LEGISLATION of true worthiness and virtue in benefit to all Canadians,
can bribe or justify me to forget that a portion of every penny I
VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER to Revenue Canada IS USED IN AN ACT OF PURE
MURDER, A TRUE HOMICIDE IN FACT IF NOT IN LAW. I cannot, must not, do
evil to achieve a good end.
Public funded abortion, the life or death of pre-born Canadians, the
right for them to JUST LIVE IN THE WOMB and NOT BE KILLED FOR HUMAN
CONVENIENCE, is a deal breaking issue, a matter of the deepest gravity
for me and many millions of Canadians.
THREE OF EVERY FOUR Canadians in a poll taken as recent as last
October, STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH TAX FUNDED ABORTION.
I contend and submit Your Honour, that a fair and just trial can only
be rendered such, IF I AM GIVEN A FAIR AND JUST OPPORTUNITY to present
my defense before a representative group of 12 Canadian citizens, a
Jury of my Peers under Your auspicious guidance.
I have made it clear publicly for more than 20 years that I would
rather suffer imprisonment than voluntarily surrender money to any
person or institution who would use even the smallest portion of my
money to perpetrate murder on any human being. My religion as a Roman
Catholic and my formed conscience tells me unequivocally that I would
be in material and perhaps even formal cooperation with murder and as
such would be personally complicit. A JUDGMENT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH
MEN PROPOSE AND PREVAIL UPON MEN, AWAITS US ALL.
I pray in humility that Your Honour will exercise your commendable
authority and discretion and grant me a hearing to present arguments
for the laudable service of a Jury in this unique case. May I thank
you, Your Honour for your forbearance in hearing this heartfelt
BY PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGE GRAYDON NICHOLAS
Judge Nicholas began by asking the Prosecution assigned to the case,
Barbara Campbell, if there were statute limitations on charges under
the tax laws, since I see this first charge is for the year 2000. Ms.
Campbell replied, "I believe it is seven years, Your Honour." (this is
a point our lawyers will verify)
The Judge then very politely explained that a hearing regarding a
jury was not within his competence, that he is bound by procedure and
law at this moment to only hear a plea from the defendant. He explained
that "this is a summary offence charge and legislation requires that it
be heard by judge alone." (Unless said offence carries a maximum jail
sentence of 5 years) though, he explained, defense may open this
question a number of ways. The court may be petitioned to elevate the
charge from a Summary Offence to a Indictable Offence, in which case a
Jury is eligible.
Mr. Little then spoke of Charter Rights wherein it speaks of a person's
right to a fair and just trial and that these rights could support the
need for a jury trial. The Judge replied that Charter Rights arguments
could be brought up in the trial allowing for appropriate filing of
motions or notices to the prosecution previous to trial.
Finally, Judge Nicholas asked Mr. Little if he was ready to enter a
plea to the three charges and the response was, "Yes, your honour, not
guilty." The trial date was set for October 2, 2005, with at least two
more days set aside, the 3rd and 4th for extra time needed.