 |
 |
| English » District Associations » Electoral District Associations | |
 |
|
|
THE ONE, AND THE ONLY, THING WE COULD DO, AND SHOULD DO! Electoral District Associations (EDAs) are Marijuana Party clones. In the way that one can snip off a small part of a marijuana plant, Electoral District Associations This article explains how to make and run an EDA Income Tax Act, Section 127(3) There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable by a taxpayer under this Part for a taxation year in respect of the total of all amounts each of which is the eligible amount of a monetary contribution that is referred to in the Canada Elections Act and that is made by the taxpayer in the year to a registered party, a registered association or a candidate, as those terms are defined in that Act, (a) when that total does not exceed $400, 75% of that total, (b) when that total exceeds $400 and does not exceed $750, $300 plus 50% of the amount by which that total exceeds $400, and (c) when that total exceeds $750, the lesser of (i) $650, and (ii) $475 plus 33 1/3% of the amount by which the total exceeds $750, if payment of each monetary contribution that is included in that total is evidenced by filing with the Minister a receipt, signed by the agent authorized under that Act to accept that monetary contribution, that contains prescribed information. THE INITIAL INGREDIENTS FOR CREATING AN EDA 1) Two letters signed by the Party Leader, as required 2) Chief Executive Officer, (CEO) of the EDA, 3) Chief Financial Agent, (CFA) of the EDA. 4) Auditor of the EDA. As repeated in Bill C-23 taking effect on June 19, 2014: 448. (1) An electoral district association of a registered party may submit to the Chief Electoral Officer an application for registration that includes (a) the full name of the association and of the electoral district; (b) the full name of the registered party; (c) the address of the association’s office where records are maintained and to which communications may be addressed; (d) the names and addresses of the chief executive officer and other officers of the association; (e) the name and address of the appointed auditor of the association; and (f) the name and address of the financial agent of the association. Accompanying documents (2) The application shall be accompanied by (a) the signed consent of the financial agent to act in that capacity; (b) the signed consent of the auditor to act in that capacity; and (c) a declaration signed by the leader of the party certifying that the electoral district association is an electoral district association of the party. Requirements are self-evident in EC - 20383 form (Note that that EC - 20383 may not open completely using all possible Internet browser programs. It should open using Microsoft Explorer, or Google Chrome, however, it may not open properly when using Mozilla Firefox.) Elections Canada Web site: provides EDA information. Elections Canada provides on-line teaching videos, “electronic financial reporting programs”, etc., and offers their toll free help line: 1-800-486-6563 ... Elections Canada has made considerable effort to simplify, rationalize and consolidate political financing information into a new set of handbooks for candidates, leadership candidates, nomination contestants, associations and registered parties. The handbooks are available on the Elections Canada website and will be updated as required when there is new legislation. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=dis/formsreg&lang=e http://www.elections.ca/pol/can/ufc/training1_e.html Packages of papers necessary to register an EDA http://www.elections.ca/pol/dis/formsreg/ec20383_e.pdf THE PARTY LEADER SHALL BE USING "SECTION L" OF THE FORM EC 20383 TO AUTHORIZE ANY NEW ASSOCIATIONS. THE PARTY LEADER WILL SEND NEW EDAS TWO LETTERS ... The EDA should apply to register under the boundaries it will have under the 2013 Representation Order, that has 338 electoral districts. On the form EC - 20383 form the CEO completes Section B, type 3, option 3. For the leader’s declaration, Section L, choice 3 (The 2013 Rep. Order), the leader completes only Part 1 with the name of the new riding, which matches the name of the new EDA. The format of that EDA authorization letter, to be signed by the Party Leader, was already approved by Elections Canada officials, as well as up-dated in 2015 in accordance with amendments that changed the numbering of the relevant sections of the election laws. Elections Canada officials are aware of what this Web page published here says. Elections Canada is well-aware of what the Marijuana Party has been doing with regards to all our registered political activities. It is our duty to record and report our activities. We have been doing so annually, and thereby have been able to develop the ideas presented here. That letter clearly states that the EDA is authorized to issue official receipts for contributions. That letter supplements Section L which is page 7 of the 9 pages in the FORM EC 20383. Both that authorizing letter from the Party Leader, and the authorizing Section L from the Elections Canada Form 20383, will be signed by the Party Leader and mailed to individuals who are interested in registering a new association. A copy of that letter signed by the Party Leader, which authorizes the EDA to register and to issue official receipts, should be included in the package of the completed EC 20383 when that completed application is submitted to Elections Canada. The Party Leader provides one signed letter to enable the EDA to become registered, which also authorizes the EDA to issue official tax receipts for financial contributions to the EDA, as well as the Party Leader also provides a completed Section L, to be used by a new association in their EC 20383 application, in order to apply to register a new association under the 2013 Representation Order. Note that Elections Canada has been moving towards more acceptance of email scans in order to complete registration, and changes to the registration of EDAs. As the form EC 20383 now states: "The form can be submitted to the Registration Unit by mail, fax or e-mail. For e-mail, scan a signed copy and send it as an attachment." Therefore, it is possible for the Party Leader to send his EDA authorization letters by email, as attached scans, to people interested in registering an EDA, and then follow that up with mailing the paper versions later. Everything, (except the tax receipt issuance authorizing letter signed by the Party Leader, and the Section L signed by the Party Leader,) which must be done by the EDA to satisfy Elections Canada, is available from Elections Canada. The new EDA’s Chief Executive Officer takes the initiative to register their own EDA, by getting authorizing letters from the Party Leader, and finding other people to consent to become their EDA’s Chief Financial Agent, and the EDA’s Auditor. The contact information, and signature, of a qualified professional Auditor stating that he, she, or it, consents to be the Auditor for that EDA must be also included in the package application of the completed EC - 20383 that is submitted to Elections Canada. EDA Auditor. A qualified person must sign an official letter of consent The Auditor must be a qualified person, according to the election laws. That Auditor does not have to become a Member of the Marijuana Party. The Auditor does not have to reside inside the electoral district of the EDA. The Auditor’s job is to review the bookkeeping of the association, and say the Auditor agrees the EDA’s report to Elections Canada is a fair and accurate report. The person who has consented to be an EDA official Auditor has a legal right to any reasonable review of an EDA’s bookkeeping documentation. Financial Agents of an EDA must provide reasonable access to their records to their Auditor. An EDA that does less than $5,000 in total transactions during a year does NOT have to be audited. Only EDAs that do more must be audited, and then, the government pays up to the first $1,500 of the fees for that necessary auditing. Any person attempting to register any new The current Marijuana Party Auditor is Gary Rozon CMA garyrozoncma@rogers.com Gary’s Tel: 613-823-7922 Gary’s Cell: 613-866-2299 The people applying to register an EDA may contact the party Auditor, Gary Rozon, to ask him to send them the page 5 of the EC - 20383 form (05/2013) stating that he consents to become the Auditor of that EDA. They may email Gary, and he may email a scan of that completed page back to them. The party Auditor needs the same information as required by the Elections Canada application, namely the names and addresses of the CEO, CFA and office of the EDA. GARY ROZON PRIMARILY NEEDS TO BE INFORMED OF THE FULL NAME OF THE NEW EDA. The page 5 of the EC 20383 that Gary Rozon completes to consent to become appointed as the Auditor, which he may email back to the people registering their new EDA is included with the rest of the pages of that EC 20383, when that completed application package is submitted to Elections Canada. Or, the persons attempting to register a new association may find another qualified Auditor anywhere else in Canada. EDAs are free to change to a new auditor any time they want, as long as they also forward that new information and new Auditor’s consent page of the EC 20383 form on to Elections Canada. For instance, another auditor that specializes in Elections Canada matters may be contacted at http://www.campaudit.com/ By becoming associations, registered at Elections Canada, PARTICIPATION PREMIUM PLAN ( the PPP ) The structure of the PPP is explained below... It is enough to tell you how to do it yourself! ALL REGISTERED PARTIES AND ASSOCIATIONS MAY DO THIS! Canadians have the abilities to become Taxpayers should act in their interest to participate. An Officer or an Agent of an EDA is free to register The PPP enables taxpayers to make BUT, EDAs are not required to make Participation Premiums. OF COURSE, ANY REGISTERED EDA COULD USE THE TAX CREDIT Registration allows EDA participation tax credits. The best percentage deal is from $400 donation, The best percentage deal, with the most anonymity, TAX BENEFITS VIA LOCAL PARTICIPATION PREMIUMS: Any Officer or Agent of the EDA The documents and records which are reported on All that the law requires is the documented records. The law permits freedom over what to decide to do. After registered, flows of money may make tax credits. Income tax law provides credits in each calendar year. At the present time, any resident, or citizen, of Canada could contribute, up to maximum of $1,550 per year to any one EDA. The maximum will automatically increase $25 per year.
Maximum political contribution allowed to us I.e., about 52% tax credit return from registering. Registering one’s own preferred political activity THAT IS THE PRACTICAL POINT TO THIS PROCESS! Being registered, we deliver it to ourselves. We can because we are a registered party! Thus, we can offer legal power to do it Taxpayers who want to deliver the benefits to themselves, Canadian taxpayers, who learn how, MAY The Christmas season is the most sensible 1 Following up immediately in the New Year also Surely, arrangements can be made any time of year. One does not have to work at running an EDA every day, nor every week, nor every month, but rather, one only has to decide to do something, and do that, once a year, and then complete the necessary reports regarding that activity once a year. Political contribution tax credits take place within the yearly tax cycle, and reporting on what was done to Elections Canada also takes place within another yearly cycle. Participation for each individual is only required once a year, in order for them to register their own political activities. An EDA does not have to do more than required for the individuals who operate within it, to complete their own transactions, and their reports upon those transactions, within the yearly CRA tax, and Election Canada’s annual report requirements. After one learns how to do that, it only takes minutes to complete the actual transactions, and less than an hour to complete the required reports. The only thing that takes considerable effort is to figure out how to do that the first time. In the light of the fact that one can regain control of several hundred after-tax dollars, by deciding to register an activity, and doing that, the benefits far outweigh the efforts to learn how, especially since, after one learns how the first time, it is much easier to do that again the next year, and in every year after that! Furthermore, if one learns how to do that for one’s self, then one can also do that for anyone else that also wanted to participate. As will be REDUNDANTLY explained in greater detail below, the leader of a registered political party can authorize an Electoral District Association (EDA) to become registered with Elections Canada. That EDA then has the legal right to receive and spend money, and to issue official receipts for the money it receives which generated legally valid political contribution tax credits, and to engage in any other political activities that it decides to engage in, according to the beliefs and personal political priorities of the people that participate inside of that EDA. The Political Contribution Tax Credit is Subsection 127(3), BETWEEN the "Logging Tax Credit" which is subsections 127(1) & 127(2), and "The Investment Tax Credit" which is subsection 127(5): The regulations regarding issuing official receipts for political contributions are 2000 and 2002. At the present time, the PRIMARY WAY that the financial agents of an EDA generate valid official receipts under the Canadian elections law and income tax law is to learn how to use the ELECTRONIC FINANCIAL RETURN (EFR) computer software, in order to complete the necessary annual reports on the financial affairs of their EDA, required by Elections Canada (EC) and the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA). Everything legally necessary to generate valid official receipts for financial contributions to registered Electoral District Associations is already built into the EFR software program. Therefore, when the Officers and Agents of an EDA learn how to properly use the EFR computer program, they are simultaneously learning how to generate valid official receipts for political contributions, as well as how to generate their appropriate Financial Reports upon their EDA’s other registered political activities. AGAIN, ALL OF THAT WILL BE EXPLAINED IN GREATER DETAIL BELOW, BECAUSE THE PRACTICAL POINT OF ENGAGING IN REGISTERED POLITICAL ACTIVITY THROUGH A REGISTERED ELECTORAL DISTRICT ASSOCIATION IS THE RIGHT TO ISSUE OFFICIAL RECEIPTS THAT QUALIFY TAXPAYERS FOR THEIR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION TAX CREDITS. The current leader of the Marijuana Party has been working on that issue since 1984, and continues to work on that issue today, because the funding of the political processes are the most important issues that are always present in the background behind all other political issues, and there is no other significant material benefit that small registered political parties have other than political contribution tax credits. Taken together, the funding of politics is the most important single issue, that influences and dominates all other issues (of course, including marijuana laws) AND the only legal tool that the Marijuana Party has that may make a material difference is the political contribution tax credit incentive to try to encourage more people to participate. THE FACTS THAT MORE THAN 99% OF CANADIANS TEND TO NEVER PARTICIPATE IN FUNDING ANY REGISTERED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, AND THEREFORE, 99.7% OF THE POLITICAL TAX CREDIT POTENTIAL IS NEVER USED, ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL FACTS, WHICH ARE FACTS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT, AND FEEL THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT! The paradoxes which surround the FACTUAL social situation that, throughout the history of Canada, tiny, tiny minorities of the people paid for all registered political activities, while the vast majority of the people paid for nothing, are the most important paradoxes one must comprehend in order to understand the HUGE AND GROWING DIFFERENCE between the theoretical legal rights and freedoms that all Canadians share, versus the practical realities that more 99% of Canadians have tended to never exercise their rights and freedoms to engage in funding registered political activities, while less than 1% of Canadians have dominated the funding of all registered political activity, throughout the history of Canada. THAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN CANADIAN POLITICS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT MORE THAN 99% OF CANADIANS TEND TO DELIBERATELY IGNORE, AND ARE MOSTLY MISINFORMED ABOUT. THAT IS WHY THE LEADER OF THE MARIJUANA PARTY HAS BEEN WORKING TO TRY TO DEVELOP THE POTENTIAL OF ELECTORAL DISTRICT ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH IS THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE! LINKS to a 30 year history behind Participation Premiums The original common law theory about political contributions was correctly stated here: Conservative Central Office v. Burrell [1982] 2 All ER 1, at pp. 7 e to 8 e, Lord Brightman, speaking with the agreement of the Court of Appeal, stated: "No legal problem arises if a contributor (as I will call him) hands to a friend (whom I will call the recipient) a sum of money to be applied by the recipient for the political purposes indicated by the contributor, or to be chosen at the discretion of the recipient. That would be a simple case of mandate or agency. The recipient would have authority from the contributor to make use of the money in the indicated way." "Longley’s Loophole" could have also been referred to as "Lord Brightman’s Mandate Theory." The idea that a political contribution would become a gift, where the contributor chose not to mandate their political agent to act, but rather, leaves their political agent free to do anything they wanted with that "gift," was merely one of the contributor’s choices. Unfortunately, there has been a persistent effort to try to force political contributions to become charitable gifts. That is the source of all the rest of the absurdities, that have been piled higher and higher, over the decades. The idea that money given to a political party was the same as a charitable gift was always BULLSHIT. It was always backwards to the real situation. In McGovern v. Attorney General [1981] 3 All ER 493, at p. 509 a to b, Lord Slade provided a definition of political purposes, to distinguish them from charitable purposes. (Lord Slade’s common law consideration of political purposes has been adopted by the Federal Appeal Court of Canada.) Lord Slade’s definition was not intended to be exhaustive, but included (1) furthering the interests of a political party, or (2) procuring changes in the laws or the government’s policies in our country or in another country. The political purpose delivers benefit to party supporters, or their purpose is intentionally engaging in political activity that protests a policy or law, or the lack of a policy or a law. A rule of thumb is that anything the government spends money on is certainly political. Again, originally, under common law, the point was that political activity was NOT charitable. The idea that political contributions were supposed to be the same as charitable contributions has been the work of professional liars, promoting classic immaculate hypocrisy. When the Charities Directorate of Revenue Canada took over administration of the political tax credit, back in 1974, there were tens of thousands of registered charities, but only a handful of registered political parties. Tragically, that Directorate deliberately ignored the common law traditions, and instead promoted bogus notions about political contributions being required to be regarded and treated the same as charitable contributions. That deliberate distortion has since been pumped up and up, for decade after decade, in ways which systematically destroyed the abilities of Canadians to enjoy and exercise their rights and freedoms to participate in the funding of the political processes, in the ways that those should have been regarded and respected. The final result has been that more than 99% of Canadian taxpayers never claim their own political contribution tax credit. Of course, that situation is deliberately promoted by the less than 1% of the population that paid for almost everything to be done by political parties, throughout Canadian history, which has enabled the basic monetary and taxation systems to become almost inconceivably crazy and completely corrupted. Therefore, most "reforms" of election laws usually actually end up destroying democracy ever worse, although those "reforms" are presented as being somehow supposed to make democracy better. Those are some of the primary reasons why democracy in Canada is dwindling and dying, and that has gotten so bad now that it looks like a runaway fatal illness, from which society is not going to recover. In most ways, we live inside of a Bizarro Mirror World Fun House, where almost everything appears as proportionately backwards and distorted, or a Wonderland Matrix of absurdities. The way that the meaning of political contribution was gradually subverted and inverted, to become treated as if that was the same as a charitable contribution, was one of the driving forces behind that overall process, since the funding of the political process has always been the fulcrum point, which provided the maximum leverage over controlling what governments actually ended up doing. This Web site article about Electoral District Associations primarily concerns the on-going development of what may be called "Longley’s Loophole" (or applying Lord Brightman’s Mandate Theory) through the political contribution tax credit provisions. The Canadian political tax credit was first enacted in 1974. Blair T. Longley, the currently registered Leader of the Marijuana Party, discovered that there was a more than ten billion dollar per year loophole through that political tax credit in 1984, when he first ran in a Federal election as a Green Rhino Candidate. Longley became a registered agent of the Rhinoceros Party in order to work for several years to develop a factual basis of processing about $10,000 worth through the tax loophole scheme that he had discovered in 1984. From 1989 to 2000, Longley worked on a court case against the Revenue Canada taxation department of the Federal Government. (Another LINK to the judgment in that court case appears near the bottom of Elections Canada’s Web site list of significant court cases.) He finally won his case by proving that his use of the political contribution tax credit had always been legal, and that senior officials in Revenue Canada had been dishonest when they had denied his use of political tax credits was legal. From 2000 onward, the Marijuana Party has been making full legal use of "Longley’s Loophole" political contribution tax credit scheme. From 2000 to 2003, the Marijuana Party Tax Credit Scheme was wide open. BUT, on May 14, 2004, the Federal Government changed the election laws in order to criminalize most of that original political contribution scheme. Limited versions of making some after-tax profit from political participation are still available to Officers and/or Agents of Marijuana Party Electoral District Associations (EDAs). THIS ARTICLE HERE IS ABOUT WHAT IS STILL LEGAL TO DO NOW. After more than a decade of continuing to actually do this, from 2004 and on, up until still now, and after numerous efforts to put pressure on Elections Canada, as well as the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency, to admit that what we were doing was legal, in a way that would be useful to inform average Canadian taxpayers about their rights and freedoms regarding political contributions, Longley was only able to get Elections Canada to state three sentences that were meaningful and useful, in the context of their letters that were otherwise mostly useless. Those three sentences were as follows: THIS IS AN APRIL 17, 2009, REPLY FROM Genuine transactions in which contributions are made without an agreement concerning their return, coupled with legitimate reimbursements of expenses incurred while acting on behalf of an EDA, would not violate the Canada Elections Act. The most recent admission that Longley was able to THIS IS AN AUGUST 31, 2012, REPLY BY There are many aspects of the operations of political entities that are not regulated by provisions of the Canada Elections Act. The financial controls, approval processes or restrictions on financial decision-making of an EDA are matters internal to that association and the party with which it is associated. That statement by Legal Counsel at Elections Canada BELOW ARE COMPLETE DETAILS OF WAYS WE DO IT. EDAs register with Elections Canada a name: [electoral district name] Marijuana Party Or, in French: Parti Marijuana de [nom de circonscription] With long riding names we use abbreviations. After that legal entity is registered, Any EDA, between elections, EDAs can receive money from any legal source The law permits anything that it does not expressly prohibit, and There is a real creative freedom to act, Laws are package deals of THE MAIN LEGAL BENEFIT THAT AN EDA HAS THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES INFORMATION ON “PARTICIPATION PREMIUMS” are some legal ways to Laws are blueprints to build social machines. Elections law make it possible to build EDAs. EDAs may be concentrated in particular electoral districts, The Party Leader’s primary purpose is However, there are no practical reasons People who are Members of this party, The Leader has the power to sign letters that authorize the creation of an EDA, and the power to revoke that authorization, by a resolution of the Leader that is witnessed by two Officers of the party as a whole, which is delivered to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. If the Party Leader ever agreed to an official merger of the Marijuana Party with another registered political party, then all our EDAs would automatically also be deregistered, and/or merged, according to the terms of whatever merger the Party Leader had agreed to with another party. There can be only one EDA in each electoral district. After one EDA succeeds in registering in an electoral district, then no other group may use an another authorizing letter to register in that same electoral district. In fact, the majority of people who have asked for and received letters to authorize them to register an EDA have never yet done so. So far, the majority of people who have said that they wanted to become a Candidate, or register an EDA, and received Candidate endorsing and/or EDA authorizing letters, usually did not actually ever do so. If someone requests authorizing letters, but then does not use them to register, the Party Leader may send authorizing letters to another new group that declares they want to register an EDA in that electoral district. Any alternative authorization letters from the Leader for a particular electoral district become null and void after a particular EDA is first registered by Elections Canada to be there, for as long as that first EDA continues to be registered. Any other letters for the registration of an EDA in an electoral district can not be used, after a first letter has actually been used to register an EDA there, for as long as that EDA continues to be registered there. The Marijuana Party had the power to create 308 EDAs previous to October 1, 2013, which has increased to 338, after October 1, 2013. The boundaries of the current 308 federal electoral districts have been revised to become 338 electoral districts. AFTER OCTOBER 1, 2013, A NEW EDA SHOULD REGISTER IN THE NEW ELECTORAL DISTRICTS THAT WERE CREATED. (Option 3, form EC 20383). http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=dis/nro&lang=e It is important to remember that registration entails administrative and financial obligations. Once the association is registered, it will have all of the rights and obligations of a registered association as set out in the Canada Elections Act, including the obligations to file the Annual Statement of Registry Information (form EC 20056 – due by May 31 every year), report changes to the information in the association’s registry record within 30 days after changes occur, file the Statement of Registered Association Assets and Liabilities (form EC 20031 – due within six months of registration), and file the Registered Association Financial Transactions Return (form EC 20081 – due by May 31 every year). That should be done promptly, even if that report is NIL. It is possible to ask the Chief Electoral Officer for an extension of the deadline to file reports up to 2 weeks after that deadline. If no request is made for an extension to file a report until after 2 weeks past that deadline have passed, then it is necessary to get a special court order to file a late report. Getting a court order to file a report becomes quite a lot more trouble than asking for an extension within a couple weeks after the deadline to file the necessary report. Obviously, it is better to file required reports in advance! GeoExplore is available to EDAs: Elections Canada has extended the use of GeoExplore to electoral district associations. GeoExplore is a Web-based application that allows users to locate civic addresses, streets, municipalities, postal codes, electoral districts and polling divisions anywhere in the country. GeoExplore also provides access to the latest updates of the many maps and reports produced by Elections Canada in PDF format. Elections Canada provides information to the party as a whole on how to use GeoExplore, including the necessary user name and password. The party as a whole may forward this information to its electoral district associations. However, Elections Canada stresses that EDAs must maintain the confidentiality of the user name and password and not share those outside their organization. It is up to the individual taxpayers
|
Click on our flag/logo for a one page summary of those Four Steps originally offered by the Nanaimo Cowichan Marijuana Party, (NCMP) (which no longer exists, because that electoral district no longer exists.) The same transactions could similarly be done by any other registered association. Simply change the name of the association in that document from the ASSN to the name of any other registered association, and then the same legal opportunities exist for another registered association to also make those Participation Premium arrangements.
The EDA is free to negotiate a payment for goods or services at some total less than amount which was donated to EDA. The EDA Agent may charge a fee to register an Officer. The net after-tax benefit could be reduced by that fee. Any variations of such schemes may be legally possible.
After taxpayers knew about this, and decided to participate, then it only takes a few minutes to conduct the actual documented transactions that may result in taking back control of hundreds of dollars of an individual’s own income tax money. Any local community group, all of which became Officers of an EDA, could agree to spend their collective funds on any collective, community project, which they agreed to pool their contribution funds to spend on making and maintaining, in order to advance the EDA, by thereby providing the EDA with a political advantage by having done that. (However, remember that the ownership of such assets must remain held by an Agent of that EDA.)
It is possible to make one donation of $1,275 to one EDA, in order to get one income tax receipt for that, in order to claim the maximum $650 political contribution tax credit. However, the same logical cost/benefit arguments apply to any lesser amount that was contributed, as applies to the maximum possible legally allowed amount.
For average income Canadians, their maximum participation tax credit claim return could be worth as much as a thousand dollars is to them, before-tax. That is, the maximum $650 per year political tax credit is comparable for the average person to about $1,000 that they earn before taxes. For Canadians, that make, say $24,000 per year, $1,000 represents 2 weeks of work. Therefore, gaining a $650 reduction in their Federal tax payable is like regaining control over 2 weeks worth of their net benefit from their labour. Of course, there is a range of individual circumstances, and the higher the income a person has, then the less significant $650 of their after-tax dollars may seem to them. But nevertheless, it is a measure of what average taxpayers are forgoing when they fail to participate, that such amounts often represent them working at their jobs for a week or two. Considering that will happen again, every tax year cycle, with new tax credit opportunities, learning how to participate and doing so should make sense to people, since they could be thereby regaining control over amounts of their own money that represented a week or two of their own work. Of course, this line of analysis only throws into starker contrast how strange it is that more than 99% of Canadians continue to never participate, and never claim their own political tax credits.
At present, the Marijuana Party has several registered EDAs ...
Use the search tree side bar on our Web site to locate:
http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=86
or, employ the search engines at Elections Canada.
In fact, in 2010, the current Party Leader set up
for himself to be also both the CEO and an Agent
of the Nanaimo Cowichan Marijuana Party (NCMP).
The Nanaimo Cowichan electoral district ceased to exist when the 2015 General Federal Elections were called, and therefore, the NCMP was voluntarily deregistered. However, all of the things learned and demonstrated during the history of the NCMP still apply and are possible for any other Electoral District Association.
With the agreement of the CFA, the CEO may become an EDA of an EDA: an Electoral District Agent of an Electoral District Association. The Party Leader did that through the NCMP, and therefore, the Party Leader, as NCMP CEO, could appoint Officers, and the Party Leader, as NCMP Agent, could receive contributions, issue official receipts, and spend money on behalf of the NCMP. Thus, the Party Leader could deliver the PPP to any Canadian taxpayer, as well as authorize others to create their own associations, to be empowered to autonomously do similar arrangements, which result in tax credit benefits. Everything that the Party Leader demonstrated was possible through the NCMP are things that any other EDAs could also do.
Aside from that the Leader must authorize an EDA, the
Canada Elections Act allows EDAs to be autonomous!
All Marijuana Party EDAs will continue to be as autonomous as the Canada Elections Act allows them to be. Each EDA may develop its own internal practices. An EDA can operate informally, with nothing but the Canada Elections Act to control and limit it, or an EDA, if the persons active within it want to, can agree to any political contract amongst themselves of protocols of how they want to be organized and operate thereafter. However, since the Officers and Agents of an EDA are not required to have signed Membership Declarations for the party as a whole, nor have to support, nor vote for Radical Marijuana Candidates, an EDA may be run as a relatively independent entity, with only limited connections to the party as a whole, or the party’s election Candidates. In keeping with the Marijuana Party traditions, our EDAs are intended to be ways to possibly help Candidates, but do not necessarily have to do that, and are otherwise to be as free and flexible as the election laws allow. An EDA may or may not help endorse good Candidates during elections.
An EDA is not allowed to spend money campaigning during an election, and an EDA does not have to have any necessary connection to local party members, or to election candidates endorsed by the party as a whole. Local party members are not required to participate in their local association. Party members may or may not participate in any electoral district association, anywhere in Canada. Any EDA can do the same as what every other EDA may do, anywhere in the world.
While it is natural that members living in an area could benefit from the association in their electoral district, there is nothing in the law that requires that. The law only provides and encourages EDAs for party members in that ED to participate in. The law does not require that. An EDA is not obliged to do anything more than the election laws require to continue to exist. An EDA only has to be as active as the people participating in it want it to be.
More than one EDA may share the same CEO or the same CFA, and the same Auditor. It is possible for people in a region to organize and operate more than one EDA. The Officers of an EDA do not have to live inside of the geographical boundaries of that electoral district. Officers or Agents in an EDA do not have to be party members. The registered office of an EDA does not have to be within the geographical boundaries of that electoral district. An EDA registered office has a legal right to operate in its space. One EDA office may share space with other EDAs in a central office.
Any EDA may legally engage in any businesses its Agents could.
EDA Officers and Agents must learn and obey the relevant laws.
Electoral District Association Agents and Officers must do their own homework to study the law’s requirements. All of the work to meet the requirements to register a valid EDA with Elections Canada must be done by people in that EDA, and those people do so by communicating directly with Elections Canada, and the Canadian Revenue Agency NOT through the Party Leader.
Some of the main obligations of an association include:
• Initial financial reporting following registration s. 403.05
• Update registry information.
• Maintain books and records of financial transactions.
• Issue receipts for contributions.
• Annual fiscal returns.
Reporting after the registration of a new EDA:
The registered association has to inform Elections Canada about its assets and liabilities after it becomes registered. The Statement of Registered Association Assets and Liabilities EC 20031 lists the association’s assets and liabilities as of the day before the effective date of the registration. It must be submitted to Elections Canada by the financial agent within six months after the association becomes registered, regardless of when in the year the association was registered.
Registered Association Financial Transactions Return EC 20081
The EC 20081 is an annual filing. It may be done solely with through using the paper version, especially if that is merely a NIL report. However, if NOT NIL, the EC 20081 is much better done using the Electronic Financial Return (EFR). It must be completed by the financial agent and sent to Elections Canada within five months after the end of a fiscal period.
Upon registration, an association shall adjust its fiscal period so that it is not less than 6 months or greater than 18 months. Therefore, an association that registers on July 1 or later in the year does not file for that year. For example, if an association registers on September 1, 2015. The first financial transactions return will be for the fiscal period of September 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. This return will be due five months after end of fiscal period on May 31, 2017.
The creative principle in the law is that
whatever is not prohibited is permitted.
The EDA has to do what the law requires...
Beyond that, an EDA is free to do anything
that people active in an EDA want it to do!
After persons have received their letters of authorization from the Leader, it is up to those persons to learn about the laws governing EDAs and to fulfill the administrative requirements asked for by Elections Canada. Neither the party as a whole, nor the Party Leader, need to provide any supervision nor assistance, other than initial letters of authorization of that EDA to be registered and to issue receipts. The people who are active in creating and maintaining an EDA are solely responsible for obeying the law, and they in turn may be the ones who will benefit from their ability to use the legal powers given to EDAs by the Canada Elections Act and Income Tax Act.
An EDA Officer or Agent can enjoy their personal creativity to decide what political activities to engage in, and how they are going to act on their own values, through their EDA. The opportunity in these areas is always to understand what the law requires and allows, and then to decide upon what creative ways to use these legal powers. The law provides the blueprint to build a political tool, or a political machine, in the form of a registered EDA. The purposes to which that tool or machine are put are up to the EDA to decide, according to the personal priorities of the persons active in that EDA. The people who create and maintain the EDA may do very little, or a lot, with their political tool, depending on their political purposes and interests.
WHAT THEY CAN DO IS REGISTER THEIR PREFERRED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.
451. Within six months after the day on which it becomes a registered association, the association shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with EC 20031 (a) a statement, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of its assets and liabilities, including any surplus or deficit, as of the day before the effective date of the registration; and (b) a declaration in the prescribed form by its financial agent that the statement is complete and accurate.
After any association failed to file required reports,
(the first financial report within six months of registering,
then, annual registration up-dates and financial reports,)
... it receives warnings from Elections Canada to do so...
If the association continues to fail to file reports,
the association will eventually be deregistered.
There is a legal technicality that the people
who signed their consent to become the
Chief Executive Officer or the Agent
of an association that fail to file,
could be prosecuted under the law for not filing reports.
They are supposed to file their reports!
However, if there is no evidence that their association ever actually did anything, and has only failed to file a report that stated they did nothing, then the Elections Canada Commissioner would "probably" not bother to start a prosecution ...
That de facto policy was formalized, as featured on this Electitons Canada Web page:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=acp&document=index&lang=e
If people do not obey the law, as far as Elections Canada is concerned, then they may end up having their Electoral District Association deregistered. That is their problem, not the Leader’s problem. The Leader could authorize a new one, after they were gone. During the history of the Marijuana Party, several registered EDAs have simply stopped communicating with Elections Canada, and were therefore eventually deregistered. EDAs are supposed to file a final report after being deregistered. However, several EDAs in the past, that never did anything anyway, simply stopped reporting to Elections Canada, and that was the end of that.
The Leader’s legal opinions are worth no more than anyone else’s. The Leader will grant any reasonable benefit of doubt to persons in an EDA conducting their own political experiments in creative political activities regarding anything that may influence any government in the world. Only if the persons involved in an EDA finally and irreversibly lost in all courts of law, may they be forced to stop prohibited political activities, and even then, not necessarily stopped by the Leader.
After an association was deregistered, during different reasonable periods of time, it would be possible for a new association to become registered in that electoral district, and, under justifiable circumstances, even perhaps possible for the old association to become re-registered. A new association restarted in the same riding as an EDA was deregistered in may have to file the necessary back reports that should have been filed by the old EDA while it was registered. ... If new people became the Officer and Agent of the renewed association, then they would have the power to file those old reports that the old persons should have filed, with the justification that the old persons failed in their duty to do so. If the same people continued to be the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Agent of an EDA, then they would have to explain why they failed to file previously, as well as file those reports that they should have filed before. If they can not provide reasonable justifications, then there must be a clean break, with new people to take over those official roles, to do what was then necessary to continue as a registered electoral district association in that electoral district. Since the party can have only one EDA in each riding, and since each EDA is a separately registered entity, after an EDA is deregistered, that normally means that a new EDA registered in that riding later is a new registered entity. If enough time passes, such a year after that the old EDA was deregistered, then a new EDA should be considered a completely new registered entity, without obligations to the previously registered EDA in that particular electoral district.
REPEATING FOR EMPHASIS:
The Marijuana Party is governed solely by the Canada Elections Act as well as the Income Tax Act and any other laws of general application.
Both our National Headquarters and Chief Agent are autonomous.
The election law does not require
that members participate in the
operation of the Head Offices.
The party is divided into the principal offices of the party as a whole, the National Headquarters, which is that of the Party Leader and other Officers of the party as a whole, and the Chief Agent, who supervises other Registered Agents of the party as a whole. The party’s National Headquarters is separate from any EDA offices. The CFA of an EDA can only act for the EDA, the CFA can not do anything on behalf of the Marijuana Party as whole. The Chief Agent, or a Registered Agent directly appointed by the Chief Agent to act on behalf of the party as a whole, are the only persons who legally act for the party as a whole. Their offices are legally separate from those of the CFAs and other Agents of EDAs. To emphasize this legal fact, the maximum that any individual Canadian resident or citizen is allowed to donate is $1,550 to an EDA, and a separate additional $1,550 to the party as a whole. The separate contributions emphasize the separate legal status.
Election law does not state
how members participate
in any district association.
That leaves each EDA open to creatively
invent its own ways to allow members to
participate in their chosen association(s).
Electoral District Associations are primarily for the
members of the party that are living in the district.
EDAs may create their own memberships for their own EDA.
EDA membership is not necessarily membership in the party.
Membership in the party is not necessary to acting in an EDA.
EDAs must obey some special rules during elections.
EDAs are not allowed to spend money campaigning!
Generally speaking, EDAs are for between elections,
while Candidates are primary during those elections.
The things making material differences are political tax credit arrangements.
Doing that individually through autonomous EDAs is the best theoretical way.
Individuals have to learn to use their own legal rights and freedoms.
That is what this article, and our registered party status,
can provide to any and all individual Canadian taxpayers!
EDA Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
The CEO begins as the "Big Daddy" or "Big Mommy" of the EDA.
By analogy to the game of Chess, the CEO is the King, the CFA is the Queen, and the other association Officers and Agents are like the Knights, Bishops or Castles. The flow of power comes from the Pawns, and should return to them, however, the currently established political systems try to prevent the people from understanding that spiraling torus of power. It takes individuals willing to be their champions to help the people regain their power. Those people, who begin as Pawns, could be queened, by them being appointed to become Officers and Agents, who then have the rights and freedoms to register political activities through the association. In this analogy, the Pawns are all the citizens and electors. The whole party depends on the people, who are the Pawns, to sign membership declarations, to enable the party to become registered, and to maintain that status, so that the Party Leader can authorize associations, to enable the people, as the Pawns, to participate in, and to perhaps be queened, to become association Officers and Agents, that then can register their own preferred political activities.
The Canadian political system is set up to be a long game, a tournament of a game of games in each electoral district across the country. In that analogy, the Party Leader is the King of Kings within his party. The various Kings and Queens, and other Officers and Agents, in each electoral district, which are Pawns that have assembled and channeled the power of other Pawns, by inserting themselves as paddle wheels into the flows of the political power that comes originally from the Pawns. Without the willing participation of the Pawns, then there can be no Kings, nor other analogous Officer and/or Agents.
By law, the electors (the Pawns) must be 18 years old. The financial Agents of an EDA must be legally able to engage in contracts in their own name, and therefore, must be over age 18, the election law does not explicitly require that the CEO of an EDA be over 18 years old, nor does it require that other EDA Officers be over the age of 18. Thus, interesting political experiments with youth becoming EDA CEOs appear to be possible at the present time.
The CEO can appoint/terminate the Chief Financial Agent, (CFA).
The CFA must supervise the money.
The CEO may not handle money,
unless the CFA appoints the CEO
to become an Agent of their EDA.
... there are many different POSSIBLE arrangements ...
CEOs could create a Canadian, or provincial corporation,
that could be appointed to become the CFA of their EDA.
The party as a whole could have done that too,
except that would expensive, and unnecessary.
CFAs can appoint other Agents of the EDA.
As long as CFAs supervise annual reporting,
then EDA Agents could act independently,
in the same way as any other Officer
that was appointed by the CEO may.
One limit possibility illustration is:
Any individual, who was also a signing officer of any corporation,
may be appointed to become CEO, while their corporation is CFA.
Another limit possibility illustration:
An individual who is an Agent processes their own contribution to an EDA.
In general, the CEO is the political person,
while the CFA is the financial person, and
a CEO is like the "owner/navigator,"
& CFA is the hands-on EDA "driver."
However, it is legally possible to push this to become
the same Canadian individual does all the registration
through themselves as an Officer and also as an Agent.
or
An individual who is an Agent
could do all the registration,
and provide their reports on
that to the CFA of the EDA.
Just like the Party Leader can appoint other Officers of the Party as a whole, including the Party’s Chief Agent, the CEO of an EDA can appoint other Officers of the EDA, including the CFA. Sufficiently motivated individuals may do it all directly for themselves, through association with a registered political entity.
REPEATING ANALOGIES BETWEEN AGENTS:
There are three kinds of Agent participation.
The Candidate must have an Official Agent.
A EDA must have a Chief Financial Agent,
who then may appoint more EDA Agents.
The party as a whole must have one Chief Agent.
By definition, our Chief Agent is our Chief Bagman.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bag+man
bagman
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Informal chiefly Canadian
person who solicits money or subscriptions for a political party.
Bagmen could only collect $20 or less anonymously, and only by following the reporting requirements to identify where and when that money was collected from anonymous donors. Donating bags of greater amounts of real cash given to political entities has been criminalized. No agent can legally accept any cash contribution of more than $20. Any money put into the BAG more than $20 has to be by check or other negotiable instrument that provides the contributor’s name & address. But nevertheless, it is correct to literally say that our Agents ARE, according to recognized definition, the Bagmen of the Marijuana Party.
The Chief Agent of the Marijuana Party is the Chief Bagman for the Marijuana Party, with the power to appoint any other bag men or bag women for the Marijuana Party too. As well, the Chief Financial Agent of any EDA may similarly be called the Chief Bagman of that association, with the power to appoint and supervise the activities of other bag men or bag women for that association.
The Party Leader has the unilateral power to appoint another person to become the Chief Agent of the Marijuana Party. Everything that the Party Leader could theoretically do through the party as a whole, and thus through the Chief Agent, is better done through the Leader’s own electoral association, of which the Leader is BOTH the CEO and an EDA Agent, and thus, could theoretically do everything necessary to register the participation of any Canadian taxpayer that wanted to do so. Therefore, the Party Leader ONLY needs the party to be registered, in order for it to continue to be able to authorize the registration of party electoral district associations.
After that party registration is achieved and maintained, then anything the Party Leader could do, IF TAXPAYERS AGREED WITH THE PARTICIPATION PREMIUM PLAN, could be done through the Party Leader’s own EDA, than through the party as a whole. It is better done by the Party Leader empowering other people to do it for themselves and others, through their own EDA. The party as a whole is relatively useless, other than as the registered source of the power to register electoral district associations, which are the best ways to claim the political contribution tax credits, which is the only material tool that the registered party has to make a real difference. From a practical point of view, the party as a whole is merely a slightly more expensive means to maintain a larger version of an electoral district association. In that context, the Chief Agent of the Marijuana Party is just like the Chief Financial Agent of an association, except that the party as whole has more fixed and necessary expenses and obligations to fulfill than any association, and thus, the Chief Agent of the Marijuana Party has a slightly more onerous job than the Chief Financial Agent of an association. However, obviously, these Agents are fundamentally similar.
The Chief Agent of the Marijuana Party acts autonomously.
In the context of the Marijuana Party, these positions are made by the law and were only limited by the election law. By registration, political people were presumed primary, since the political person appoints the financial person. The political person could terminate their appointment. That financial person can appoint Agents under them.
The political person was primarily political.
The financial person is primarily financial.
The party as a whole, and the EDA, were intended to be analogous ... However, there are some formal differences. The formal process to appoint Officers of the party as a whole is slightly different than for Officers of an EDA. For the party as a whole, the new officer signs Form EC 20360, which the party forwards to Elections Canada to be registered. For an EDA, a new Officer may or may not sign a consent to accept their appointment to be an officer, depending on how that EDA decides to operate. There is no form provided by Elections Canada to do that. The EDAs are required to inform Elections Canada of changes that reflect the appointment or the termination of an appointment of any EDA Officer or Agent. See EC 20383 General Form, for reporting of changes to the information in the Registry of Electoral District Associations Since there is no legally required form that an Electoral District Officer or Electoral Agent must sign to consent to their appointment, an informal agreement is sufficient.
When an EDA appoints new Agents, then the EDA uses the EC 20383 Report of appointment of the Electoral District Agents of a registered association For its own documentation, an EDA may also keep a copy of its own optional letters that new Officers or Agents have signed to indicate that they have consented to accept their appointments.
The party as a whole’s Chief Agent can appoint other Registered Agents of the party as a whole, including that the Chief Agent may appoint the Party Leader to be a Registered Agent of the party as a whole. That did happen before in the early history of the Marijuana Party, but that is not the case now, since EDAs became the better vehicle for registered political activities after 2004, and so the Party Leader is now the Agent of his own EDA, rather than a Registered Agent of the party as a whole.)
The EDA can do all the same political arrangements through the law, thereby enabling registration to pay tax credits for participants. However, while the party as a whole could also do the same thing as the EDA, the party as a whole would have to pay for the auditing of that, while the EDA does not necessarily have to pay for its auditing. Therefore, it is better for people to do it through EDAs, than through the party as a whole. That permits much wider distribution of the direct power to do it, into the hands of more individual Canadians.
The CFA of an EDA can appoint other Agents of the EDA.
The official appointments may overlap on one individual.
An Officer may simultaneously be an Agent, however, an Officer who is not an Agent can not sign any EDA money bank account. An Officer who is not an Agent can not issue an official receipt for income tax purposes, while of an Agent of an EDA can. An Officer that is not simultaneously an Agent may contribute money to an EDA through an Agent, and may receive money from an Agent. However, an Officer that is not simultaneously an EDA Agent can not sign a final official receipt for a donation, and can not sign to deposit contributed money, and can not sign to spend EDA money. An Officer of an EDA can contribute to an EDA through an Agent, and may be paid EDA money through an Agent. The same individual may fulfill both roles, and thus do it all for and through themselves.
The EDA’s CEO may organize and operate the EDA in any way that conforms to the Canada Elections Act. There is an infinite variety possible. The laws do not require any particular relationship between the members of the party and the organization and operation of an EDA. The Marijuana Party allows each CEO to develop their own EDA.
The CEO of an EDA may appoint other Officers within that EDA, and the CEO may terminate the appointment of those other Officers. The CEO of an EDA may give any appointed Officers any titles or any duties or freedoms at the pleasure of the CEO. The CEO may be creative, within the limits required by the election laws. The initial structure of an EDA is made by the CEO getting the written consent of a qualified CFA and Auditor as required to register the EDA. An initial EDA does not need anything more.
FORMAL separation of financial persons
from the political persons in their party.
There are loopholes, but legal prohibition
of an Agent from being a Candidate does
separate the political from the financial!
There may or may not be any formalization of democratic processes within an EDA among the members of the party who reside in that district, or elsewhere. An EDA may continue to operate according to nothing else than by the election laws, OR, an EDA may adopt a voluntary political contract among themselves, to which the EDA CEO must voluntarily agree, for that political contract to become thereafter binding upon that particular EDA.
An EDA may or may not create a political contract within itself that becomes the charter, constitution, or by-laws of that EDA which will govern it in the future. An EDA may not initially do so, but then may later do so. Absent any voluntarily agreeing upon some political contract in an EDA, there is no formal democratic process within an EDA, since the election law does not define or require any such process. CEOs are free to follow any informal process of consultation. CEOs may agree to bind themselves to some political contract between them and other members of their EDA, but they can not be initially forced to agree to that with the members. EDAs depend upon their Chief Executive Officer.
A CEO of an EDA, like the Party Leader, can not be
constrained by a consultation with party members.
EDA Chief Financial Agent (CFA)
No person who is a "financial Agent" is allowed to be an election Candidate.
TO REPEAT:
A CEO may be a Candidate, but a CFA can not.
The financial people involved in a political party are NOT legally allowed to run as Candidates for elections. No EDA financial Agent is allowed to be a Candidate for election. A financial Agent may be a corporation owned by one or more party members or EDA Officers. That corporation may be anywhere in Canada.
Financial tasks include everything that involves money in EDA efforts promoting political purposes or activities. An EDA is a political machine which is driven by the CFA, with the CEO as the navigator. The EDA needs money to be driven. With no money, the EDA has to be parked. (An EDA can be parked and do nothing, and yet still continue to exist as long as the CEO and CFA make their reports to Elections Canada.)
The financial jobs require bookkeeping and reporting.
An EDA can extend itself, if it wants,
by creating EDA Officers and Agents,
that can operate as sub-party units.
EDA political Officers and financial Agents may be independent.
However, CFAs should act as the
supervisor of all the EDA Agents,
to make coherent official reports.
The law allows that an EDA can appoint
an unlimited number of other Agents
besides the CFA, and all of them
may issue official tax receipts
and make expenditures.
They could work in co-operation with any EDA Officers.
The Chief Financial Agent of an EDA is analogous
to the Chief Agent of the whole Marijuana Party.
One of the jobs of the CFA is to supervise other electoral district Agents appointed inside of that EDA, the same as one of the jobs of the Chief Agent is to supervise any other Registered Agents that work for the principal office of the whole party, or Registered Agents that work within any party provincial divisions. There is naturally a very strong analogy between the party as a whole and the EDA. The same legal principles apply to both the EDA CEO and the Party Leader, and so too apply to both the EDA CFA and the Party Chief Agent. In general, whatever is true about one applies to the other. The same legal theory applies to all Agents, only the entity that they represent changes.
The Marijuana Party has no by-laws to limit how its Chief Agent spends money. The Chief Agent has sole discretion to decide what to do. The Chief Agent acts for the best interests of the party, however, it is up to the discretion of the Chief Agent what is best for the party as a whole, within its budget. The Chief Agent could only be sued for a breach of trust if acting blatantly against all of the party’s possible interests. Anything that the Chief Agent could do as a breach of trust would, and must necessarily be, at the same time, an offense against the law. Anything not an offense against the law is permitted according to the discretion of the Chief Agent, with respect to the budget of the party as a whole. The discretion to act for the party interests includes everything that is legally permitted. Nothing can be outside of that discretion that is not simultaneously an offense against law.
If the Chief Agent commits no unlawful offense,
then there was committed no breach of trust
within the exercise of their wide discretion.
The Chief Agent may informally consult
with party members and other Officers,
but does not have to agree with them.
Agents’ discretion was absolute regarding
what are their own entity’s best interests.
They are permitted to do anything that is not unlawful.
Most of the laws apply equally to the CFA of an EDA, as those laws apply to any other Agents of the EDA. The CFA is a special Agent of the EDA because the CFA is responsible for supervising any other local EDA Agents. The CFA is the Chief Financial Agent, which must supervise their reporting to Elections Canada, regarding the legal affairs of the EDA as a whole. That is similar to the ways that the party Chief Agent is responsible for supervising any other Registered Agents of the party as a whole, including those in any possible provincial divisions of the party. At the present time, there are no other Registered Agents of the party as a whole. The Chief Agent has final authority to appoint or terminate the appointment of any other Registered Agent of the party as a whole in the future. The CFA of an EDA has final authority to appoint or to terminate the appointment of any other financial Agent of the EDA.
The only way that the CEO can control what a CFA does is to terminate their appointment and replace them with another person as CFA. One way that the CEO can directly control what the EDA does with its money is for the CEO to also be an Agent of the EDA. Otherwise, the CEO can not actually drive the EDA, but only recommend to the CFA what to do. After the CEO also becomes an Agent, then they can do it directly, and report on having done that in a complete and timely way to meet the deadline for the CFA to report to Elections Canada.
However, since the CEO could appoint a corporation to the the CFA, which corporation appointed the CEO to also be an Agent, then the same individual could do it all, by switching through their overlapping official roles, analogous to like changing hats, from that of Taxpayer, to Officer, to Agent, to Taxpayer again.
In the event that the CFA is a separate human individual from the CEO, if the CFA does not agree with the recommendation given by the CEO, then the CFA does not have to do it, but may resign or have their appointment terminated by the CEO instead. (Since the CEO appoints the CFA, the CEO may terminate that appointment.)
As long as the CFA fills that office, then they have discretion to do anything that is lawful for a CFA to do. That discretion may be limited by a political contract with the CEO and other members of the EDA, but it does not have to be. In the absence of any political contract that limits the actions of the CFA within the EDA, then the only recourse that the CEO has is to terminate an appointment and replace one person with another person.
That new person who becomes CFA is in the same position as the previous CFA, in that they do not have to do what the CEO says, unless they agree to do that, but could have their appointment terminated, and be replaced again by yet another person as a new CFA.
In the analogy of the CEO being the owner/navigator of the EDA, and the CFA the actual driver, the CFA is responsible for the driving, and may pay heed to navigation suggestions and recommendations from the CEO or other associates of the EDA. However, the duty to drive the EDA, by receiving and spending money, is always directly under the discretion of the CFA, and that can not be taken away, except by termination of their appointment as the CFA.
If the same individual goes through the official appointments necessary to have all the legal powers to arrange it directly, then that individual has merged the driving and navigating functions.
An individual who is both Officer and Agent is both navigator and driver, as those may overlap, analogously to an individual switching hats. They have all the legal powers to donate and spend, and to collect tax credits arranged according to the creative comprehension of themselves as participants. The same individuals may take on different official roles, and those roles are like the driver and navigator of a vehicle or vessel. They may do one, or the other, or both, one after the other.
Like with the analogy of a driver of a vehicle, the CFA is responsible for driving, and the priorities of actually driving take precedence over listening to navigation advice from other people.
The CEO can not drive the EDA, but only suggest to the CFA how and where to drive. The CEO can not take over the driving directly, (unless they also become an Agent) but may only terminate the appointment of an CFA and appoint another person to take over as EDA driver.
An EDA may, or may not, formalize more rules within that EDA about these relationships. There are enough legal loopholes to permit one taxpaying individual to acquire the legal powers to do it all for him or her self.
Since it is at the discretion of the CEO to appoint the CFA, and the CEO could appoint any number of persons who consented to becoming Officers of the association, and the CFA can decide whether or not to appoint any additional Agents for their EDA, an EDA could expand indefinitely to have any number of Officers or Agents anywhere. However, every time that an EDA appoints a new Officer or a new Agent, then it must inform Elections Canada about that fact.
An EDA Agent has power to contract for their EDA, unless by-laws are adopted within their EDA to restrict that unfettered right to contract on behalf of their EDA.
Only the party as a whole is responsible for their liabilities as the party as whole, and only an EDA is responsible for all the liabilities of that EDA.
The party as a whole, & each EDA, were separately registered.
They are not legally responsible for the activities of each other.
It is possible that any one particular EDA, that was especially successful, could become bigger than the party as a whole, or any other EDA. If one EDA developed something worked well, then that thing could perhaps be copied by others later?
To REPEAT:
Financial contributions to EDAs are separate from financial contributions to the party as a whole. The party is divided into the principal offices of the party as a whole, and other offices of the party in Electoral District Associations. The Chief Agent is not responsible nor legally liable for the activities of the Marijuana Party Electoral District Associations, neither separately, nor as Electoral District Associations may be organized within any provincial divisions. They are separated by not being financially liable for any but their own political activities. Their respective Agents hold distinctly different trusts for these different registered political unincorporated associations called EDAs, than their parent, the party as a whole.
The Party Leader cannot pick which of the association’s individual Agents are authorized to issue tax receipts. An authorization once given is for all of the Agents of the association. Subsection 127(3) of the Income Tax Act grants the authority to issue tax receipts to the Agents who are authorized under the Canada Elections Act to accept contributions – which, in the case of a registered electoral district associations, are the association’s financial Agent and any other electoral district Agents appointed by the association. (The association itself can exclude the authority to accept contributions from the appointment of an electoral district Agent, which will also indirectly restrict such a limited Agent from issuing tax receipts.)
The pool of money contributed to an EDA is separate from the pool of money contributed to the party as a whole. An EDA may transfer money to the party as a whole, or to another Candidate, or another EDA, however, there are no rules that require an EDA to do so.
Each Agent acts in trust for a particular registered political entity, and is only liable within that trust for what was directly done by that political entity. The law that governs these entities seems analogous to general trust law, and the roles of Agents of Candidates, Parties, and EDAs, seems to be similar. But, they are separate entities, with separate Agents, acting in trust for that separate entity.
It is the opinion of the Party Leader that CFAs can not be held personally responsible for liabilities of EDAs, but only be held legally accountable within the limits of their trust within their EDA.
An EDA Agent is free to do anything within the law until such time as an EDA agrees to limit freedom with some sort of political contract within an EDA. All Agents of an EDA are in the same legal position as the CFA except that the CFA is responsible to make sure that all Agents in a local EDA report what is required from a registered EDA as a whole to Elections Canada in the required annual reports.
All of the proper bookkeeping and reports must be done by EDAs and submitted to Elections Canada.
An Agent can not agree to any conditions attached to a contribution that require transferring the funds to another person or entity outside of the EDA, but may consult with any party associates about when and how to dip out of the pool of EDA money and spend it.
The law emphasizes that contributions and expenses above $20 must be properly documented. The details of the required reports are provided by Elections Canada. An EDA may hold a party meeting at which two or more attend, and at that meeting may accept anonymous contributions that average less than $20 from people at that meeting. There are special forms, available from Elections Canada, that are necessary to report on anonymous contributions.
Consider analogous arrangements that the Chief Agent of the party as whole could make.
Registered Agents
396. (1) A registered party may appoint persons to act as its registered agents, subject to any terms and conditions that the appointment specifies.
The Chief Agent could appoint any individual Canadian taxpayer to become a registered agent of the Marijuana Party. There is no form required by Elections Canada to report on the appointment of a new Registered Agent of a registered party. There is no form required by Elections Canada that a new Registered Agent must sign their consent to their appointment. The only thing that the law requires is that the Registered Agent’s name and address be told to Elections Canada. The Chief Agent may simply and unilaterally make such appointments, and inform Elections Canada of that. (Of course, the Chief Agent could also terminate any such appointments later, and inform Elections Canada about that then.)
The Chief Agent could impose limitations on appointments such as that Registered Agent could only accept anonymous contributions of at an average of $20 or less from 2 or more people attending any Marijuana Party meeting anywhere, anytime. That Registered Agent could be limited to only being allowed to accept contributions in accord with the forms Elections Canada requires for those kinds of anonymous contributions. The Registered Agent would be not allowed to accept any greater contributions, nor to issue official receipts, nor open bank accounts, nor make expenditures. The only thing that that Registered Agent was authorized to do could be to accept anonymous contributions at possible meetings, and to transfer those funds to the Chief Agent in according with Elections Canada’s forms and requirements. Those Registered Agents would not have to actually arrange any such meetings, but only have their formal legal power to do so given to them, to perhaps use, at any future date.
Since it is Elections Canada that needs to know,
it is to Elections Canada that an EDA should go
to learn things necessary for the EDA to know.
The law requires reports, and reports only.
We are free to do what we later report on.
After Elections Canada registers an EDA, then that EDA may and must engage in registered politics. That registration primarily means keeping track of where the EDAs money came from, and where its money went to, in ways that could be audited, if necessary. A benefit from registration is the ability to offer official receipts good for tax credits to contributors with a taxable income.
Difference between an Electoral District Agent and the Chief Financial Agent of the EDA.
As the Canada Elections Act was amended by Bill C-23 on June 19, 2014:
S. 456. (1) A registered association may appoint, as electoral district agents, persons who are authorized by the association to accept contributions and to incur and pay expenses on behalf of the association. The appointment is subject to any terms and conditions that it specifies. (2) Within 30 days after the day on which an electoral district agent is appointed, the registered association shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a written report, certified by its financial agent, that includes the electoral district agent’s name and address and any terms and conditions to which the appointment is subject. The Chief Electoral Officer shall register that information in the registry of electoral district associations.
Notice that there is a difference between an "Electoral District Agent" of an EDA and the Chief Financial Agent of the EDA. The repeating abbreviations result in the situation where an individual may be an EDA of an EDA: an Electoral District Agent of an Electoral District Association.
 Difference between an Electoral District Agent and the Chief Financial Agent of the EDA. |
The substance of that letter was this:
The Canada Election Act does not require EDA officers and electoral district agents to provide Elections Canada with their written consent to act in the position. As such, Elections Canada cannot request such consents from these individuals.
Optional forms listed on our Web site are designed to assist the political entity in meeting its legal or financial obligations by way of checklists, applications for extension, control sheets, etc. They are not documents prescribed by legislation.
You also requested a clarification that the Canada Elections Act does not prevent an authorized electoral district agent of a registered association from opening a bank account that conduct legal business that any EDA agent may do.
The legislation does not dictate how associations should be set up internally. The legislation defines the responsibilities of an electoral district agent as persons authorized to accept contributions and incur and pay expenses on behalf of the association. But only the financial agent can accept or transfer goods or funds on behalf of the association.
The last line of that reply clarifies that the Chief Financial Agent of the association is the only one that can accept non-monetary contributions in the form of goods, and the only one that could transfer such goods, or money, from the association to the party as a whole, or another association, or to a Candidate.
Opening bank account(s) and bookkeeping for an EDA
The CFA may open a bank account for an EDA, and any other financial Agent of an EDA can too. It is a convenience for bookkeeping to have a bank account.
An EDA may use the logo of the Marijuana Party on any checks the EDA may order, when opening a bank account, perhaps in a black and white version of that party logo. The current version of our logo is not of high enough resolution quality to be reproduced on a larger scale. It only works well when reduced in size. That logo was the party’s flag from the beginning, when the party’s first leader and Web master were literally hit by rubber bullets and tear gas in Quebec City, in 2001, while holding that flag. The leaf featured in that logo is from an indica plant, which was the first kind of pot plant made explicitly illegal back in 1923. (By the way, the stylized maple leaf featured in the red Canadian flag looks more like a Norwegian maple, rather than one of the Canadian maple trees.)
The full name of this party is
Marijuana Party in English,
Parti Marijuana in French.
Therefore, we tend to use Parti Marijuana Party (PMP)
Our Party’s Election Candidates
appear on the election ballots as
“Radical Marijuana” Candidates.
INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITHIN PARTI MARIJUANA PARTY
HAVE NO DUTY TO BECOME OUR OFFICIAL PARTY MEMBERS.
INDIVIDUALS FREELY ASSOCIATED WITHIN PARTI MARIJUANA PARTY
HAVE NO DUTY TO VOTE FOR OUR RADICAL MARIJUANA CANDIDATES.
The issue of entities engaged in registered politics is unique because these entities are created by the Canada Election Act. They do not exist as legal persons outside of that Act. Registered political parties, and their EDAs are NOT a legal fiction, like a corporation or a non-profit society. Registered political entities have enabling legislation in the Canada Elections Act.
The issue of the name of the EDA, and the legal status of the EDA may arise when an Agent attempts to open a bank account. After an EDA is registered, a letter of confirmation of that is mailed to the EDA from Elections Canada, and the registration information about that EDA appears on Elections Canada’s Web site. Therefore, an Agent may show the banks or credit unions their letters of authorization from Elections Canada, and confirm that by reference to Elections Canada’s Web site. That is, the Agent is able to prove who they are, and that they are legally entitled to act as an Agent of a registered electoral district association.
The CFA of an EDA may open a bank account that may or may not explicitly say it is in trust for that EDA, but nevertheless can effectively function as a bank account belonging to the CFA, with an implicit legal trust that the CFA is using that account of behalf of the EDA, to benefit the EDA.
Ideally: "Agent name, in trust for EDA name."
However, any transactions in Agent’s name are O.K.,
as long as an Agent keeps auditable records of that.
Most of the local branches of most banks will have not handled political money before, and therefore, they will not know what to do. Instead, they will probably have the wrong idea, and tell you that you have to do the wrong thing. Many of the local bank branches tend to assume that the laws that govern charities, societies or corporations, also must govern political parties, Candidates and EDAs. The banks will often think that you have to have an account with at least two signing Officers, like a society, which is not correct. The banks will often think that you have to have a business account, which is not really necessary. HOWEVER, it still works to open a "business account," IF that is what the bank would prefer to do, although the EDA is not a business. Some banks or credit unions may have their own pre-established policies that you may decide to comply with, although those have no basis in the election laws, as long as that does not contradict the election laws. New EDAs may have to muddle through those sorts of confusions at their local bank branch. Usually, it is most PRACTICAL to compromise by opening whatever kind of bank account that the banking institution you deal with would prefer you to open, in order to operate your EDA. ANY bank account works. There are no bank accounts that do not work, as long as you keep auditable records while using that bank account.
It is possibly proper to have any kind of personal account in the name of the Agent, which that Agent could hold and use in trust for the EDA. What the CFA may prefer to do is to persuade the bank, or credit union, to do is to open an account with the CFA as the sole signing person, that will recognize that the CFA can deposit any checks made out to the name of the Agent, and/or to name of the particular EDA. Theoretically, an Agent could operate through a personal account, which is enough to enable the Agent to act in his or her or its name, on behalf of their EDA. Theoretically, bank accounts employed by the Agent on behalf of an EDA do not have to explicitly state that, but rather, only must be used in an auditable way through the name of the Agent with an implicit trust on behalf of the EDA. Therefore, an Agent may succeed with opening a bank account that is explicitly in the name of their association, which may be considered by their banking institution to be some sort of "business account." However, an Agent may also receive and spend money for their EDA through a personal account in their own name, as long as they maintain auditable records regarding all of those transactions.
The “name” of an ideal bank account might be:
name of the person who is appointed an Agent,
in trust for (Electoral District) Marijuana Party.
However, in practice, that may be abbreviated,
to any degree right down to only Agent’s name.
It is possible for accounts to simply be in the Agent’s name.
For convenience, the CFA or other EDA Agent wants the bank to allow the Agent to deposit any checks made out to any abbreviated version of their "Marijuana Party" EDA Name into the EDA account(s). That is, if the EDA has a long name, due to there being a long name of their electoral district, then the abbreviated version of that name may be written on the contribution checks, and accepted for deposit by their banking institution. For instance, if the full name of the X... Y... Z... electoral district results in the EDA name being the X... Y... Z... Marijuana Party, then the abbreviated name for that EDA may be the XYZMP. In that case, it may be convenient for that abbreviation to be recorded in the bank account that the Agent opened for that EDA, so that contribution check may out payable to XYZMP could be deposited into that bank account. However, remember that the law does not necessarily require an EDA to operate through a bank account. The bank account cannot be be in the EDA’s own name, in the sense of that EDA being a "legal person," but nevertheless, various banking institutions may prefer to open a "business account" in the name of an EDA. If a banking institution agrees to open some kind of bank account in the name of the EDA, with the Agent as the signing officer, then it may be convenient for that account to also feature the abbreviated version of the EDA name, so that contribution checks to the X... Y... Z... Marijuana Party could be made out to its abbreviated name XYXMP, in order to be then deposited in that banking account of that EDA.
From a legal point of view, anything that works, works, as long as the Agent behaves honourably, and maintains auditable records of their transactions regarding where the EDA money came from, and where it went. It is possible to use any bank account that is in the Agent’s name, and/or more explicitly in the EDA’s name, with the Agent as the signing officer recognized by the banking institutions that has agreed to open that kind of banking account. Those accounts may explicitly say that they are held in trust for an EDA, however, that trust is implicit in the registered appointment of the Agent, and therefore, the only thing that the Agent must do is keep auditable records and make reports about the transactions that they did on behalf of the EDA, some of which may have been through accounts in the Agent’s name. When the account is some kind of "business account" opened by the Agent on behalf of their EDA, with that Agent as the signing officer recognized by that bank, then the practical effect is the same, and still works, as long as the Agent continues to operate honourably, and keeps auditable records of where the EDA money came from, and where it went.
When an Agent opens a bank account for an EDA, the Agent is becoming a trustee for the EDA. A CFA, or any other EDA Agent, can open any kind of bank account that their local bank branch allows them to. The same applies to PayPal accounts, etc., and to any other assets. The assets, such as financial contributions, are in the name of the Agent, acting in trust for the party or EDA, or may be in the name of the EDA, with the Agent as the signing officer, or the person who has knowledge of the passwords that enable them to use that PayPal account, or any other similar account, including possibly various complementary currencies, such as the various available cryptocurrencies. An Electoral District Association may establish its own on-line electronic contribution methods, such as through "PayPal," or whatever. A electronic donation service like "PayPal," or whatever similar service, may deduct a small percentage fee from the amount contributed. If an EDA Agent receives a net settlement (contribution less a processing fee), that Agent should issue a contribution receipt for the full contribution amount and report the processing fee as an expense.
For example, if the Agent receives a single $500.00 contribution through PayPal and the net deposit to your party association bank account (from PayPal) is $490.00, you should report and receipt the contribution as $500.00 and record an expense of $10.00.
To summarize & illustrate the points above:
a bank account, or PayPal account, etc.,
could be
“AGENT XXX, in trust for the EDA name. ”
Or, simply in the name of the Agent.
A bank account may appear to be a business account
which features the name of the EDA, with the Agent
as the "signing officer" for that kind of account.
Those various banking accounts may also
explicitly state some abbreviated name,
such as the letters of the overall EDA.
Please note if the registered party or registered association receives contributions destined for a Candidate, the registered party or registered association must issue a contribution receipt (the campaign must not issue a contributions receipt). The registered party or registered association may then send a monetary transfer to the campaign, which will record the cash inflow as a monetary transfer. (The maximum that a Candidate with money could contribute to his or own election campaign would be a combination of $5,000 to their own official agent, plus $1,550 to the party as a whole, plus $1,550 to an electoral district association, where upon the party and that association would transfer that total $3,100 to the Candidate’s Official Agent.)
The law automatically adds $25 to those limits per year.
Agents should take precautions to inform the potential on-line donors about the requirements of the election laws. In order for the Agent to reasonably sure that the contribution is eligible, it is prudent to present the relevant information to the potential contributor.
Section 404.4 (1) of the Canada Elections Act states:
Any person who is authorized to accept contributions on behalf of a registered party, a registered association, a candidate, a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant shall issue a receipt - of which he or she shall keep a copy - for each contribution of more than $20 that he or she accepts.
It is the auditable flow of the money that matters.
There must be receipts to say where the money came from to become deposits. Receipts must comply with both the elections and income tax law. Agents may auditably put money through any accounts, including those kept in any banks. A banking account, in the name of an Agent of an association may be a convenience to the Agent, but only to the degree that bank account assists the Agent in keeping auditable records. The Agent is the nexus of the transactions on behalf of the association, and making those transactions auditable is a duty of the Agent.
Elections Canada provides computer software for registered political entities to do their bookkeeping and reporting. That software is excellent, and practically necessary for all Agents to download and learn how to use. That software is capable of generating the necessary official receipts for accounting and income tax purposes.
The downloadable version of that software was up-dated during 2013, to Electronic Financial Return, to reflect changes in the Canadian Income Tax Act, due to the technical amendments to the regulations enacted by Bill C-48. (It is advisable to keep that Election Canada software up-dated, when new versions become available in the future.)
When EDA Agents are using that software to generate receipts in Participation Premium arrangements, where individual financial contributors are also Officers and/or Agents of their EDA, who direct or control how their contribution is spent on behalf of their association, that they are acting within, then the Amount per CEA is the full amount of money that they donated to their EDA, and the Monetary Amount Given by the contributor is the same amount of money that they donated via their check, or electronically. The Advantage Received per ITA is "$0.00," and therefore, the Advantage Description is "none."
The Agent of an EDA, which issues any official receipts for contributions, must also submit a T2092 form to the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t2092/
For more information, see CRA Information Circular 75-2r8:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/ic75-2r8/ic75-2r8-11e.html
TO REPEAT, see again:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns409-485/409-410-eng.html
"Under proposed changes, the eligible amount is the amount by which the fair market value of your monetary contribution exceeds any advantage that you received or will receive for making it. Generally, an advantage includes the value of certain property, service, compensation, use, or any other benefit. This applies to any contribution made after December 20, 2002."
The Canadian political contribution tax credit provisions are published here, between sections 127(2) and 127(5):
127.
Monetary contributions — Canada Elections Act
(3) There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable by a taxpayer under this Part for a taxation year in respect of the total of all amounts each of which is a monetary contribution referred to in the Canada Elections Act made by the taxpayer in the year to a registered party, a provincial division of a registered party, a registered association or a candidate, as those terms are defined in that Act,
(a) when that total does not exceed $400, 75% of that total,
(b) when that total exceeds $400 and does not exceed $750, $300 plus 50% of the amount by which that total exceeds $400, and
(c) when that total exceeds $750, the lesser of
(i) $650, and
(ii) $475 plus 33 1/3% of the amount by which the total exceeds $750,
if payment of each monetary contribution that is included in that total is evidenced by filing with the Minister a receipt, signed by the agent authorized under that Act to accept that monetary contribution, that contains prescribed information.
Marginal note: Issue of receipts
(3.1) A receipt referred to in subsection (3) must be issued only in respect of the monetary contribution that it provides evidence for and only to the contributor who made it.
Marginal note: Authorization required for receipts from registered associations
(3.2) No agent of a registered association of a registered party shall issue a receipt referred to in subsection (3) unless the leader of the registered party has, in writing, notified the financial agent, as referred to in the Canada Elections Act, of the registered association that its agents are authorized to issue those receipts.
Marginal note: Prohibition — issuance of receipts
(3.3) If the Commissioner of Canada Elections makes an application under subsection 521.1(2) of the Canada Elections Act in respect of a registered party, no registered agent of the party — including, for greater certainty, a registered agent appointed by a provincial division of the party — and no electoral district agent of a registered association of the party shall issue a receipt referred to in subsection (3) unless the Commissioner withdraws the application or the court makes an order under subsection 521.1(6) of that Act or dismisses the application.
(4) [Repealed, 2003, c. 19, s. 73(1)]
Marginal note: Monetary contributions — form and content
(4.1) For the purpose of subsections (3) and (3.1), a monetary contribution made by a taxpayer may be in the form of cash or of a negotiable instrument issued by the taxpayer. However, it does not include
(a) a monetary contribution that a taxpayer who is an agent authorized under the Canada Elections Act to accept monetary contributions makes in that capacity; or
(b) a monetary contribution in respect of which a taxpayer has received or is entitled to receive a financial benefit of any kind (other than a prescribed financial benefit or a deduction under subsection (3)) from a government, municipality or other public authority, whether as a grant, subsidy, forgivable loan or deduction from tax or an allowance or otherwise.
The Elections Canada computer software can generate official receipts for incomes tax purposes to give to the contributor, and a copy for the Agent of the EDA to keep for their records. Their copy of the official receipt the EDA Agent must keep for at least 2 years, to be available to audit, if that was deemed necessary. However, it is not necessary to submit copies of the official receipts to the CRA, along with the T2092 form, as long as the Agent of the EDA retains a copy for their records.
Annually, before the end of May, the Chief Financial Agent and Chief Executive Officer must send their necessary reports to Elections Canada, AND the Agent of an EDA that issued any official receipts for income tax purposes to contributors MUST ALSO send a completed T2092 form to the CRA office in Ottawa, as stated on that T2092 form.
Financial contributions to an EDA may be made by individuals who are not party members.
All of the political contribution money has to go in a pool or pools of money held by EDA.
A contribution means a monetary contribution or a non-monetary contribution.
A monetary contribution refers to money that is not repayable.
A non-monetary contribution refers to the commercial value of a service (other than volunteer labour) or property or of the use of property to the extent that it is provided without charge or at less than its commercial value.
The Chief Agent of the party, or the CFA, or another Agent of any EDA, may make personal financial contributions to the party, or to the EDA. They make their own contribution as an individual, and as an individual taxpayer, they legally claim their own political contribution tax credit.
Any individual citizen may be similarly active in an EDA. That individual can, as a private person, give unconditional gifts to an EDA and then, acting as a member or other Officer or associate of an EDA, they may influence the CFA or other financial Agent, to dip into the pool of registered money and spend it to advance particular political activities.
Since the Marijuana Party has nothing to govern it but the election laws, there is nothing to require nor prevent an Agent, from spending money that they hold as signing officers, or as trustees, in some particular ways other party associates have suggested to the Agents.
The wide-open and full use of the legal powers to solicit financial contributions and spend those funds are enjoyed by an EDA, in the same way as the party as a whole can do. The CFA of an EDA, and other Agents, are free to use their creative discretion to spend the EDA’s money according to their view of the EDA’s interests. They are free to accept or reject advice or recommendations from their associates. EDAs are free to receive and spend their money.
The CFA can sign contracts for their EDA, including take out loans for their EDA. However, nothing a CFA does can legally bind the party as a whole, and the CFA of the EDA can not bind the Chief Agent to any contract.
The Agents are the real drivers of the machinery of the association. The CEO, members, and other associates of an EDA, act like navigators. The EDA Agents may be advised by associates. The CEO and members may, or may not, further formalize their navigation. Only the CFA and Agents do monetary transactions. It is receiving and spending money that makes the EDA’s registration become real. The CFA receives and holds the assets of the EDA. A CFA can only be legally liable within that trust, and, is not personally liable outside of that trust. If an EDA that has no agreed upon political contract to act to limit it, then any CFA is free to exercise their discretionary powers for the EDA in any way without offense. Therefore, it is possible that a CFA could open a personal account, rather than a business account, and that would still be legal. If a bank would be happier opening business accounts (from which the bank makes more money in fees) then that would be acceptable too.
Opening EDA accounts through credit unions may require membership in that credit union, and complying with their policies. However, merely because a CFA opened a business account, instead of personal account, does not change the legal situation that an EDA is not an incorporated business.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has decided that a registered political party, and its associations are NOT legal "persons" that can be sued, or sue, in a court of law. A party or an association can ONLY be deemed a legal person for the purpose of a prosecution under the provisions of the election laws. Outside of that, a party and its association do NOT have the status of a legal "person" before the law, and thus can not sue, or be sued, directly in its own name.
A registered political party, and its registered associations, are considered to be an unincorporated association, of whom only the individuals associated are legal persons under laws. Registered political entities can be seen as analogous to unincorporated associations, but not as legal persons in their own right.
Since Longley v. Canada (Attorney General)
Paragraph [116]
The political parties here are unincorporated associations, and it is not disputed that at common law they do not have the status to sue or to be sued in their own name.
That Ontario Court of Appeal decision is the law now.
The law has returned to the Agent of the party or association as the trustee of the registered entity. Since the EDA is not considered a legal person, therefore, the Agents of the EDA act as the trustees of the EDA. Any possible language about registered parties or EDAs being "incorporated businesses" is legally wrong. The party, or an EDA, is an unincorporated association of electors. Such an association may engage in any business, however, the association is not an incorporated business. Associations have no legal rights nor existence beyond what its individual citizen members have separately, including the rights of any incorporated company that becomes appointed as an Agent of the EDA. Nobody else acts as EDA Agents but officially registered Agents.
However, they are NOT "Agents" like Agents of any other person.
Legally, EDA “Agents” are acting more like trustees.
The laws regarding trustees acting for trusts
may apply to EDA Agents by strong analogy.
Originally, in the early common law,
political parties were NOT persons.
Gradually, with the registration, since 1974,
political parties became like legal "persons."
Court cases where the suit involved a party name in the style of cause were stuck out.
However, several later court cases’ styles of cause contained a registered party name.
The old common law was that parties were not persons.
The statute law seemed to be gradually moving
towards transforming a political party into a
registered entity with legal person rights.
However, that recent trend in statutory interpretation by the courts towards regarding political entities as legal persons was reversed by the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which decision was deliberately not reviewed by the Supreme court of Canada.
Instead, it returned to regarding
all election law created entities
as not being legal “persons.”
It was strange that, for a while, we started to go down a different, new path, until the Ontario Court Appeal decision dead end, and reversal, which switched us back to the older path. Up until then, the tendencies, more and more, were that political parties and EDAs were being treated as if they were legal persons. That tendency was growing in the law, and in custom, and by previous legal case conventions, until that was dead ended and reversed by the final decision by the Ontario Appeal Court. The bank accounts and everything else possessed or paid on the new apparent path were being treated more like the Agent was a signing officer of an "incorporated" EDA, rather than a trustee of an unincorporated EDA. But, the party, or EDA, is clearly now NOT a person, given the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal from the decision by the Ontario Appeal Court.
The Ontario Court Appeal decision in Longley v. Canada (Attorney General) was not reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Longley decision forced everything back to the way it used to be, where political parties and EDAs are NOT legal persons, and therefore ...
Nobody can sue the Marijuana Party, nor can that party sue somebody else. The same is true about all our associations. For instance, the Marijuana Party can not hold a copyright, and it can not sue somebody who infringed a non-existent copyright. The Marijuana Party could not be sued for defamation, et cetera.
ONLY individual electors, or fully incorporated groups, have legal rights. No new legal person is created by the association of electors in a registered EDA or a registered political party.
The law explicitly allows a corporation, which is a legal person, to become an Agent of a registered party or association. A corporation can be the Agent (trustee) for an unincorporated political party or an EDA.
If the financial Agent of the EDA is appointed as an individual, then that same individual cannot also act as the association’s Chief Executive Officer. However, if the financial Agent of an EDA is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province, any director or individual of that corporation with signing authority on behalf of the corporation can also act as that association’s Chief Executive Officer. A corporation is treated by the law as a legal person. That legal person may be appointed to be the financial Agent of an EDA, and any individual who is a signing officer of that corporation could simultaneously also be the CEO of the EDA.
Whether the EDA Agent is an individual, or a corporation, the EDA itself is NOT a legal person. An individual who is the signing officer of a corporation could exercise the power of that corporation, to be a party’s Registered Agent or an EDA’s financial Agent. However, since the EDA does not have status as a separately existing legal person before the law, the EDA is ONLY an unincorporated association, with no rights or freedoms separate from the rights and freedoms of the individuals, or the corporations, that associate together within that unincorporated EDA. Whether the Agent is an individual or a corporation, the Agent should mainly be seen as acting as a trustee for the EDA.
It is possible for the same one individual to be both the EDA’s CEO, and the signing officer of a corporation that is appointed to be the Agent of the EDA. However, when you are an Agent of a Marijuana Party EDA, you are NOT a signing officer for that as a corporation. Whether or not you are acting as an individual who is appointed to be the EDA Agent, or you are acting as the signing officer of a corporation that is appointed to be the Agent of the EDA, that "Agent" is still actually the trustee for an unincorporated association, a trustee acting for their EDA.
Agents are "trustees" for unincorporated associations.
Trust law has been growing in the British Commonwealth for going on 900 years. Fundamentally, it separates the legal ownership from the benefits of assets. Textbooks on trust law may provide puzzle pieces for the possible analogies between established trust law, and the newly emerging, and mostly still undefined & undecided legal role of Agents of registered political entities. There have been very few court cases about the issues of assets and liabilities held by parties and EDAs.
If one can NOT sue a party or an EDA, and the party or the EDA can NOT sue anybody ...
where are the rights of the party or EDA???
The "rights" of a party or EDA are nowhere.
A party, or an EDA, are NOT persons.
There are only rights for persons,
(and rights of corporations that
can be appointed EDA Agents.)
More importantly, there are rights for taxpayers
while the only significant rights for associations
are to be able to facilitate the taxpayers’ rights!
EDAs are associations of electors benefiting taxpayers that participate.
The assets and liabilities only go through the Agent, and things are owned by the Agent or owed by the Agent to others, with the Agent acting as the trustee for their registered political entity. The Agent, as an individual, is the focus of all the things done in trust for the party or EDA. The Agent has legal rights, but their registered political entity does not exist as a person with its own legal rights.
Law simply requires parties and EDAs to designate some person to be their Agent. There are nearly no rules about how the Agent may conduct transactions, only lots of rules about reporting on whatever those transactions actually were. It is crucial to recognize that the election laws empower registered entities to be be FREE to choose their own transactions, while the law requires that those transactions be capable of being audited. The freedom of the registered political entities is embodied in the freedom of its Agents to act. The main role of the law is to require limits on contributions, and to require that it is possible to audit the transactions which were freely undertaken by the Agents. The Agent owns the assets in trust for the association, and the Agent is reciprocally liable for liabilities in trust for the association.
In principle, it looks like any Agent has unfettered discretion.
AGAIN BY ANALOGY: The Chief Agent was appointed and could be terminated by Party Leader, and the Chief Financial Agent of the EDA was appointed, and could be terminated, by the CEO of EDA. If the Party Leader or CEO of EDA does not impose conditions on the trust in their appointment, then the Agent would continue to have unfettered discretion.
However, since practically zero court cases have ever been about this, there appears nothing but analogies to trust law to understand what the legal role and relationship between an Agent and an EDA exactly is. The assets are held in the name of the Agent, in trust for the party or EDA. Remember: any such Agent is peculiar in that the Agent is not really an Agent of another person. The word "Agent" has some misleading connotations in this context. It would be more in keeping with the old legal traditions to have called the "Agent" the trustee. The Agent can not be acting for the party or the EDA directly, since those political entities do not exist as persons before the law. The Agent is acting through its status as a person, holding in trust financial transactions for the interests of the party, as an unincorporated association of electors. With no court case precedents, we may not know for sure what the limits of the liability of the Agent of the party or EDA are. The Agent was supposed to use the assets for the benefit of the unincorporated association of registered political entities.
Since there are almost no court cases, and the trend of many previous cases has been reversed back to where it was decades before by the Ontario Court Appeal decision in the Longley case ... we can not be sure specifically how the full potential of the law applies to parties and EDAs, and what the relationship is between them and their Agents, and others. We are proceeding on the presumed basis that Agents of an EDA will be considered trustees that own and control the assets of the EDA, to be managed in the interests of the EDA. The opinion of the Party Leader is that, according to trust law, the Agent is only is responsible to administer the assets and liabilities of the EDA in the interests of the EDA, but the Agent is not liable for anything outside of the limits of their responsibilities as an Agent for their EDA.
Agents receive and spend money in legal and auditable ways. Agents must obey the laws both when accepting and documenting contributions, as well as when spending their money. When EDA agents spend by processing expense claims, there are legislated limits that bills must be submitted and paid within 36 months.
Payment within three years 475.2 If a claim for an expense is evidenced by an invoice or other document that has been sent under section 475.1, the claim shall be paid within three years after the day on which payment of it is due. 475.3 A person who has sent an invoice or other document evidencing a claim under section 475.1 may commence proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover any unpaid amount (a) at any time, if the electoral district agent refuses to pay that amount or disputes that it is payable; or (b) after the end of the period referred to in section 475.2, in any other case.
Membership in Parti Marijuana Party, as a whole,
is free and comes without any further obligation.
Electoral district associations may, or may not,
apply their own EDA membership fees,
separate from the membership
in the party as a whole.
Any EDA membership fee may offer any
special privileges and duties in the EDA.
It is up to an EDA to decide whether or not,
and, if so, how it shall apply its own “fees,”
& any special benefits attached to the fee.
Although it is NOT necessary for an Officer or Agent of any EDA to be a member of the party as a whole, it is in the interest of EDAs to assist the party as a whole to fulfill the legal requirements to continue to be a registered political party. Elections law stipulates that every three years, the party as a whole must submit 250 Membership Declarations. It is in the interest of the EDAs to help the Party Leader complete the triannual 250 memberships requirement, since, if the party was deregistered for failing to prove it had 250 members every three years, then all the EDAs would be automatically deregistered then too!
Endorsement of Radical Marijuana Candidates for Elections?
A party must endorse at least 1 officially nominated Candidate.
Marijuana Party Electoral Associations are amorphous.
EDAs could be compared to “slime molds,”
whose fruiting bodies may be Candidates.
However, to be practical,
in the real world, votes
for our Candidates are
worth nothing, and so,
anyone associated with
us, as a Member, or as
an Officer &/or Agent,
has the free right to
vote for anyone that
they decided is best.
Canadian voting is by secret ballots.
People associated within this party
retained all their freedoms to vote.
None of the people associated with us
are obliged to vote for our Candidates.
Getting more Candidates and more votes would make no difference, unless we could get enough Candidates to get enough votes to have more than 2% of the total of all votes. Then, some of our election expenses could be refunded. However, we are currently trapped in the Catch 22 double bind paradox that votes for the Marijuana Party are worth nothing, while votes for bigger parties, that got more than 2% of the total national votes, were worth about $2 each, per year, to those bigger parties, from 2004, until that is phased out by 2014.
In the past Marijuana Party Candidates averaged about 1% of the vote in their riding. Being able to jump up to a full slate of Candidates, getting more than 2% of all the votes is practically impossible. Since we can not reach the 2% threshold, votes for Radical Marijuana Candidates do not result in election expenses refunds. Our Candidates are running because they want to, as individuals, not because it will benefit the party as a whole in any material ways. As long as the party gets at least one Candidate nominated, it does not make any material difference if an EDA does, or does not, assist a local Radical Marijuana Candidate in getting nominated, or voted for, in their ED. However, EDAs may do so, if they wish, simply because they wanted to, for their own sake. EDAs may help get Candidates officially nominated during elections. EDAs may lend or transfer Candidates’ deposit money. EDAs may accumulate money between elections, and may transfer it to Candidates during elections. There are deliberately NO rules regarding whether or not, nor how much, an EDA must share its funds by transferring some of them to the Chief Agent of the party as the whole, nor to the official Agent of a Candidate, nor another EDA. An EDA is free to transfer money to the Chief Agent of the party as a whole, or to any Candidate, or to another EDA. However, that would be a free gift allowed by the law, not an obligation. Such a transfer would not be defined as a "contribution."
Transfers of money between and/or within EDAs
(and candidates, and the party as a whole too)
are not contributions, and thus, not subject to
s. 405.21 that criminalized political contracts
between a contributor and the EDA (or party)
to transfer some of their contribution funds to
another person or entity (including the donor).
Consider again what the government did to make
Contributor’s Choice Concept stop being legal.
Canada Elections Act s. 405.21 criminalized the CCC
with this prohibition against soliciting contributions:
"405.21 (1) No person or entity shall solicit or accept a contribution on behalf of a registered party, registered association or candidate if the person or entity made a representation to the contributor or potential contributor that part or all of the contribution would be transferred to a person or entity, other than the registered party or a candidate, leadership contestant or electoral district association.
Prohibition – collusion
(2) No person or entity shall collude with a person or entity for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition in subsection (1)."
An is EDA is not a person, but it is an “entity.”
The issue is the relationship between persons,
when registered political entities are involved.
An EDA is an entity which has persons as Agents.
The original common law, as stated by Lord Brightman, was that the contributor was the principal, while the person who received the money was their agent. After the tax credit was created for registered parties, in 1974, the common law should have continued to apply. However, the government’s taxation authorities advanced interpretations of the law, based on no good legal grounds, that amounted to assertions that political contributions were the same as charitable contributions. This profound point of political philosophy slumbers throughout our society. It is one of the Huge Lies advanced by our governments so much, for so long, that the vast majority of people presume that lie is true, although it is an absurd thing to believe, which contradicts historical facts about the funding of politics.
The original political tax credit was given to registered political parties as an incentive to encourage more participation. THAT HAS OBVIOUSLY FAILED TO WORK! The political tax credit should have been administered in ways consistent with the common law. However, the administration of the political tax credit was turned over to the section of the taxation authorities that dealt with registered charities. When the political contribution tax credit began, there were tens of thousands of registered charities, but only a handful of registered political parties. The administration of the Canadian political tax credit was directed by the charities directorate of the taxation authorities in 1974, and still is called that today, as the place registered parties and EDAs mail their required official T2092 completed return to: Charities Directorate, Canada Revenue Agency, Ottawa. Therefore, the history of the political contribution tax credit was that it should have been governed by the common law, but, instead, it was lied about from the beginning. The political tax credit was lied about in profound ways, and those Huge Lies still almost totally control Canadian society today.
That the taxation authorities were lying was proven in court back in 1999, which enabled Marijuana Party CCC political contribution credits, in 2000, which was mostly criminalized in 2004 ... which still left the current PPP.
Most of our mainstream politics hides behind false altruism.
Impossible ideals were imposed via administrative abuses!
The absurd ideal that politics should be charitable drove the government to attempt to plug Longley’s Loophole by changing the election law in 2004. That egregious hypocrisy appears to also manifest in the 2013 changes to the income tax laws. However, that absurd idea could not be enforced unless nobody who donated to any Candidate, Electoral District Association, or Registered Party, could participate in directing or controlling how that Candidate, or EDA, or registered party, spent their funds. IF that absurdity was to apply, then a Candidate could not legally donate to their own election campaign, and an Officer or an Agent of an EDA, or a registered party as a whole, could not donate to their own EDA or registered party. Despite that kind of legal absurdity, and blatant contradiction, since it has always been routine, and is still being commonly done by various Candidates, Officers and Agents to donate to their own campaign, EDA, or registered party, the government has continued to suppress the legal truth about political contributions, and attempted to discourage more people from participating. Therefore, the real money and tax systems continued being operated by a tiny, tiny minority, in ways that benefit them astronomically, while the vast majority continued believing in Huge Lies, and doing nothing!
Welcome to Canada’s Bizarro Mirror World Fun House!
Huge Lies are narrated as the biggest bullies’ bullshit social stories, as the sound tracks inside of that Bizarro Mirror World Fun House! Everything they say, and everything they do, and everything that actually happens, keeps on getting farther and farther apart, and more BACKWARDS and DISTORTED. Specifically, our real money system is NOT altruistic, and the funding of the political process that made and maintains that system is NOT altruistic ... and yet, the demand for an altruistic funding of politics has been pressured with arrogant dishonesty from governments for decades, and they have made some apparent attempts to codify that into the election law in 2004, as well as perhaps into some 2013 technical amendments in the income tax law. Furthermore, after their statements were proven to be dishonest, back in 1999, they responded to the emergence of more legal truth, and more people participating, by changing the election law statutes, and the income tax statutes, so that most of the taxation authorities’ previous lies became legalized, by changing the statutory limits on political contributions. Thus, their political prejudices that politics should be charitable, and altruistic, were given more force by possible criminal penalties.
That is the context in which Participation Premiums attempt to emerge. They are about tackling some of the most enormous lies and immaculate hypocrisies, that most control and dominate our whole society. Those Huge Lies turned our civilization into a Bizarro Mirror World, where everything became systematically backwards and distorted by those triumphant Huge Lies. That inverted totalitarianism heads towards eventual psychotic breakdowns, from too much "success" from controlling society with those Huge Lies. To try to avoid falling into that paradox of final failure from too much success from controlling civilization with Huge Lies, we need more radical politics, based on much more radical truth!
WE BEGIN WITH COMMON LAW FREEDOM.
When the 1974 package of income tax and election statutes added a political tax credit to Canadian politics, that should have been done in ways that were consistent with common law freedoms. Longley’s Loophole was consistent with the 1982 decision of Lord Brightman regarding the mandate theory of political contributions.
As the 1999 Longley trial judge stated, the taxation authorities were arrogant and dishonest about the political contribution tax credit. They knowingly asserted false statements that political contributions should be the same as charitable contributions, and knowingly attempted to back up those assertions with legal interpretations that they knew were spurious, and which they did not try to prove were correct, because they expected that they would lose, if they tried to do so. The taxation authorities were always attempting to treat political contributions under their charities directorate, in every way, from the beginning. That was always an arrogant absurdity, which denied common law freedom. However, that bogus morality is the one that dominates the mainstream of our society with its immaculate hypocrisy!
In the mirror, everything is backwards. The claim, asserted by governments, that politics is charitable, took us all inside a Bizarro Mirror World Fun House! The funding of politics was in vicious spirals within the monetary and taxation systems, whereby huge lies regarding almost everything has driven the rights and freedoms of Canadians in general to become almost totally irrelevant, while tiny minorities have taken control of the powers of government. People are brainwashed, and/or forced, to give up their own political power, and deliver that to tiny groups that control the vast majority. THE MAGNITUDE OF THE THOSE TRIUMPHANT LIES IS ASTONISHING, SINCE IT ENCOMPASSES PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING CIVILIZATION IS DOING! FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW, ABOUT 99% OF THE SOVEREIGN POWERS OF GOVERNMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EFFECTIVELY PRIVATIZED. HOWEVER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT, AND MOREOVER, THEY FEEL THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT!
Since the government previously lied so totally about the funding of politics, that became pervasive throughout every aspect of our history. The established monetary and taxation systems became almost inconceivably crazy and corrupt. Governments appear to be always lying, in principle, at the most basic possible levels. What we were told about all sciences, and culture in general, was systemically biased, by Neolithic Civilization resulting from the triumphs of lies backed up by violence for thousands of years. The vast majority of people do not understand nor participate in the funding of politics, which nevertheless dominated the monetary and taxation systems. The established systems have almost totally succeeded in completely reversing the rights and freedoms of people into becoming the justifications and rationalizations of methods that are enslaving them. The overwhelming vast majority of Canadian taxpayers have been so profoundly lied to, for so long, by the authorities, that most Canadians barely have a clue about the real magnitude of that!
Political contributions were not the same as charitable contributions, and attempting to make it a crime for political contribution to not be charitable is an absurdity headed towards psychotic breakdowns. It started with Huge Lies maintained by the taxation authorities. Despite that being proven it court, the same basic Lies were legalized by changes in the election law statutes, to criminalize a wide variety of political contribution arrangements, which previously had been perfectly legal. After that, Elections Canada took over the job of maintaining the established prejudices about the funding of politics, by continuing the deliberate ignorance towards the legal truth about political contributions. The entire established political and civil service systems have been promoting huge lies about the funding of politics. Those lies serve the established social systems of organized lies and robbery that control our civilization, by enabling a tiny minority to use the name and the power of the majority of The People to recklessly, ruthlessly, and relentlessly rob that majority, and transfer more and more wealth and power to a tiny minority.
Political contribution statutes took away people’s rights freedoms in ways that most of them did not even know happened. Most people mostly know nothing about the degree of almost absolute a priori robbery that they were born into. Literally, more than 99% of everything is taken from citizens before they were born, and their whole lives usually pass without them waking up to that, or being able to do anything about it. The triumph of huge lies is found ubiquitously throughout every aspect of civilization that one examines, while the funding of politics was the most important aspect of that, since that was where the most leverage existed.
Statutory limits on common law freedom, with respect to financial political contributions, were enacted inside of their historical context. Since 2004, the ways that the statutory election laws limited the legally allowable political contributions fit into that overall historical context, which was supported by more restrictions upon common law freedoms, in ways that were promoted by professional liars and hypocrites, in order to accomplish the opposite of what they said they were doing!
The key phrase added to the 2004 limitations upon political contributions was s. 405.21 in the election laws, regarding money "transferred to a person other than the EDA."
However, s. 405.21 does not apply while still WITHIN an EDA.
S. 405.21 was designed to plug Longley’s Loophole in 2004, and thus stop the Marijuana Party Tax Credit Scheme. Most of the originally legal Contributors’ Choices did become illegal, after Bill C-3 was proclaimed part of the election laws in May, 2004. However, the idea at the core of Longley’s Loophole can still be made to work now through our Participation Premium Plan. There still are legal ways to obtain personal benefits from participation that are not collusions to break s. 405.21 because the transactions are not collusion with a person or entity for the purpose of agreeing to transfer funds to another entity or person outside the EDA.
Therefore, the EDA can not agree, nor allow,
someone to solicit contributions for any EDA,
which contributions come with conditions to
transfer any part of those funds to
another person outside of the EDA.
Moreover, it is not legal to promise to
pay any commission to any solicitors
who are not EDA Officers or Agents.
However, if an individual is appointed to be an Officer or an Agent of the EDA, then money from out of their EDA’s pool is given to an individual within the EDA, who is acting as an EDA Officer or Agent, meaning what the individual does is inside the EDA is not a transfer to another person.
The CEO has endless discretion to
appoint Officers in any EDA, giving
them whatever titles and/or duties.
The CFA can also appoint any number of electoral district Agents, each of whom has the power to open bank accounts, issue receipts, and spend money on particular things. The same individual may be an Officer and an Agent at the same time, although their legal roles are different. The individual may donate to the EDA, while the same individual, acting as an Agent of the EDA receives the contribution and issues an official receipt for that. Then the individual, acting as an Officer, may submit a bill for home/office expenses incurred while acting as an Officer, and then that same individual, while acting as an Agent, may pay that bill with money from the pool of EDA funds. The final result is that the individual has registered those series of transactions, which generated a legal official receipt, and tax credit for that participating individual.
One motivated individual can deliver to themselves their own political contribution tax credit, by registering their own activities through an EDA. The same individual can have someone else be acting as the Agent of the EDA, (including that the Agent of the EDA may be a corporation), or that individual could become the Agent to do it for themselves directly.
The particular things paid for are within the EDA
if the individual was acting on behalf or within it.
The particular things may include typical home/office expenses necessary to do any political research or communication activities by the EDA. There is an infinite variety of possible political purposes, and possible expenditures that are related to being able to express those purposes. Individuals have a right to pick and pay for particular activities expressing their own priority political purposes. It is up to those individuals to each participate, in order to change the social facts that more than 99% of them never have before.
Any individual may become as active as they want to be,
including becoming an Officer and/or an Agent of the EDA.
The minimum required participation is that an individual must consent to become an Officer of the EDA. A crucial step in the transactions being arranged is when the Chief Executive Officer of the associations informs Elections Canada about the addition of that individual, as a new Officer of the EDA, to the registered information maintained by Elections Canada regarding that particular association. That individual must continue to be an Officer until all the transactions were completed. They may thereafter resign, by informing the Chief Executive Officer of the association of that, and then, the CEO, in turn must inform Elections Canada of the deletion of that individual from the registered information kept regarding that particular association. The CEO must inform Elections Canada within 30 days of the appointment of a new EDA Officer.
As the Canada Elections Act was amended by Bill C-23 on June 19, 2014:
463. (1) Within 30 days after the day on which there is a change in the information referred to in subsection 448(1) other than paragraph 448(1)(b), a registered association shall report the change to the Chief Electoral Officer in writing. The report shall be certified by the chief executive officer of the association.
A new Chief Financial Agent, or a new Auditor, must sign a documented stating that they accept that appointment. That is made explicit in the registration document EC - 20383 form. However, an individual who becomes appointed a new EDA Officer does not have to sign any document, although the EDA may ask for that, if the CEO decides to. The new Officer and the CEO may simply verbally agree to any appointment that the CEO gives that individual to become an Officer of the EDA. The CEO may give that individual any title, that might include information which would facilitate future bookkeeping.
There are many more possible levels of participation that individuals may, or may not, voluntarily engage in after that, including becoming an Agent, able to make the arrangements directly for one’s self, as well as other individuals who also became at least had also become Officers of the EDA, if not also Agents.
Through these various possible legal means, the EDA may subsidize its activities by political contribution credits for those people who were active in the EDA. Doing so regains individual control over several hundred dollars of one’s tax money, while not doing so abdicates control. Financial contributors can still control how their contribution will be spent, if they officially associate within a registered association. Their registered flows of money can provide after-tax personal benefits, while to forgo those benefits is to default to acting like an incompetent idiot, that does not want to control their own money. Every individual taxpayer participates in their monetary and taxation systems. We the People ARE the money system. However, in fact, more than 99% of the money is not controlled by the People, but rather by a very tiny elite that benefits from doing that, while more than 99% of the People default to doing nothing. Thus, the registered flows of money through the political process have become Bizarro Mirror World Fun Houses, where everything is backwards, and makes no sense, but rather appears as an absurd Wonderland Matrix, until one cracks the fundamental code about how and why money is measurement backed by murder, and that civilization was controlled by those who were the best at dishonesty. The history of civilization has been the history of warfare, whose successes were based upon backing up deceits with destruction, which morphed into a political economy based on enforcing frauds. The language used regarding the flows of registered money through the political processes is a legal code, where the maximum leverage exists. However, one should not expect to find the truth inside that system of legalized lies. But nevertheless, our real lives are now more controlled by those systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, as found in the monetary and taxation systems, than anything else!
17/04/2009
Dear Mr. Longley:
I am writing in response to your e-mail inquiry of September 10, 2008. I apologize that my reply has been delayed.
The arrangements described in your e-mail could be legally valid under the Canada Elections Act depending upon the facts. Genuine transactions in which contributions are made without an agreement concerning their return, coupled with legitimate reimbursements of expenses incurred while acting on behalf of an EDA, would not violate the Canada Elections Act.
With respect to whether any transaction gives the right to an income tax credit pursuant to s. 127(3) of the Income Tax Act, you should consult the Canada Revenue Agency.
Yours truly,
Trevor Knight
Legal Counsel
Elections Canada
27/04/2009
Dear Mr. Longley:
I am writing in response to your email of April 22. Please note that Elections Canada does not provide rulings with respect to hypothetical fact situations. Instead, as we did in my email of April 17, 2009, we seek to provide the general principles of the Canada Elections Act that are engaged, as well as provisions of that Act that may be raised by the question. As facts arise, we are able to explain the application of the Act to those facts.
With respect to your request that we consult with the Canada Revenue Agency on your behalf, I can report that we have consulted with CRA concerning this matter, and they have informed us that they are also unable to answer hypothetical questions, and that they prefer to deal with a taxpayer directly.
Yours truly,
Trevor Knight Legal Counsel Elections Canada
On 25/02/2011 Knight, Trevor wrote:
Mr. Longley:
We have nothing to add to our earlier responses.
Yours truly,
Trevor Knight
THIS IS THE AUGUST 31, 2012, REPLY BY
TREVOR KNIGHT AT ELECTIONS CANADA:
... There are many aspects of the operations of political entities that are not regulated by provisions of the Canada Elections Act. The financial controls, approval processes or restrictions on financial decision-making of an EDA are matters internal to that association and the party with which it is associated. ...
Longley’s Loophole is the mandate theory of political contributions.
Statutes have restricted the range of the common law regarding political contributions. Election law statutes have criminalized a wide variety of financial contribution arrangements that used to be legal. Redundant changes to the income tax provisions were proposed in 2013, through technical amendments to the political contribution tax credit regulations. However, the fundamental basis of the mandate theory of political contributions continues to manifest through Longley’s Loophole in the form of our current Participation Premium Plan. Correctly registering makes valid official income tax receipts. Spending the funds freely WITHIN the EDA is ALLOWED.
THE PRACTICAL POINTS ABOUT OPERATING AN ELECTORAL DISTRICT ASSOCIATION REVOLVE AROUND THE PROPER USE OF ELECTIONS CANADA ELECTRONIC FINANCIAL RETURN (EFR) COMPUTER SOFTWARE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE PRACTICAL WAY THAT THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE ELECTIONS LAWS AND INCOME TAX LAWS, IN THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT.
On January 4, 2014, Blair T. Longley mailed a letter to:
Manager, Technical Publications and Projects Section,
Income Tax Rulings Directorate, Policy and Legislation Branch,
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Ottawa ON K1A 0L5
calling this Web site article to their attention & asking them
about proper uses of the EFR by EDAs to generate receipts.
The first acknowledgement reply was dated January 13, 2014, from Jenie Leigh, Manager, Financial Industries and Trusts Division, Income Tax Rulings Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency.
 January 13, 2014, acknowledgement of letter from Longley from by Canadian Revenue Agency |
AS EXPECTED, on April 25, 2014, the CRA gave a USELESS "answer."
Looking at all the correspondence together, Elections Canada says ask the Canadian Revenue Agency, while the Canadian Revenue Agency says, ask Elections Canada, which was a classic kind of bureaucratic runaround.
Carefully reading everything necessary to understand the overall situation shows that they are admitting Participation Premiums are legally valid. For 10 years, all tax credit claims made through Participation Premium arrangements have been confidentially treated as being legally valid by both Elections Canada and the Canadian Revenue Agency. Neither Elections Canada, nor the Canadian Revenue Agency, have ever made any statements which explicitly denied that Participation Premiums were legally valid. (Hence, Longley has no good legal grounds to take any court actions against either Elections Canada, nor the Canadian Revenue Agency.) However, all of their "answers" to questions from Longley, from both Elections Canada, and the Canadian Revenue Agency, have been vacuous and useless to show average Canadian taxpayers what their rights and freedoms regarding political contributions actually are.
THE FACTS ARE THAT PARTICIPATION PREMIUMS ARE LEGALLY VALID ARRANGEMENTS AVAILABLE TO ALL INDIVIDUAL CANADIAN TAXPAYERS. HOWEVER, 99% ARE NOT INTERESTED, AND THUS, SPENDING MONEY TO TRY TO PERSUADE THEM TO BEGIN TO PARTICIPATE TENDED TO BE AN EFFORT THAT WENT BANKRUPT, RATHER THAN WORKED, BECAUSE WAY TOO FEW PEOPLE WHO ARE INFORMED ABOUT THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS THEN DECIDE TO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE.
An extremely small percentage of Canadian taxpayers have continued to make their own Participation Premium arrangements. However, the overwhelming vast majority of individual Canadian taxpayers prefer to do nothing, rather than participate. Those are the real social facts. Arranging Participation Premiums through Longley’s Loophole is legally possible, but virtually no individual Canadian taxpayers are interested in doing that. Practically everyone deliberately ignores their opportunities to claim their Political Contribution Tax Credits, through registered political activities that they can control.
REPEATING TO EMPHASIZE THE CRUCIAL ISSUES:
THE PRACTICAL POINTS REGARDING OPERATING AN EDA ARE EXPRESSED THROUGH THE PROPER USE OF ELECTIONS CANADA ELECTRONIC FINANCIAL RETURN EFR COMPUTER SOFTWARE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE PRACTICAL WAY THAT THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELECTIONS LAWS AND INCOME TAX LAWS, IN THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT.
Through the original fully legal Longley’s Loophole, before May 14, 2004, the contributor did not have to become an Officer of an EDA. Under the original Contributor’s Choice Concept, the contributors did not have to associate with the party in any other way to enjoy their freedom to control how the party spent their contribution. However, after May 14, 2004, to take advantage of the Participation Premium Plan, a contributor MUST also become at an Officer, and/or Agent. That way still allows for citizens to associate with EDAs to create PARTICIPATION PREMIUMS via political tax credits. That has NOT been prohibited by changes in the income tax laws and regulations made in 2013.
An individual MUST become associated within an EDA, or with the registered party as a whole, in order to be able to direct or control how the funds of that EDA or party are spent. After those individuals become associated within that EDA or party, then any advantages while they act on behalf of their association or party do not result in refunding or cancelling their contribution to that association or party. They continue to have the legal right to claim their tax credits, despite them being able, when acting as Officers or Agents, to direct or control how the funds they contributed to their association or party are subsequently spent. The advantages that they personally enjoy, while acting as Agents or Officers of the association or party that they are acting within, are legally NOT advantages which result in legal refunds of their contribution amounts, in ways which cancel their contribution, and so, cancel their official receipt, and their political contribution tax credit claims. The full amount that they contributed to their EDA is the eligible amount with respect to the issuance of their official receipt, to use to claim their political contribution tax credit.
Anyone officially operating through Marijuana Party registered Electoral District Associations can legally arrange to take advantage of the political contribution provisions, found in the elections law and income tax law. HOWEVER, virtually everyone deliberately ignores that opportunity.
TO REPEAT THE CENTRAL FACTS:
The funding of the political process began within the common law freedom. That was theoretically amplified by the political tax credit, but then that potential was strangled almost to death by the taxation authorities’ dishonest administration. After those authorities were proven in court to have been arrogantly dishonest, the Marijuana Party tax credit scheme was able to develop for a few years, from 2000 to 2003. The government responded to what it perceived as a growing abuse of the political tax credit by placing more stringent limits on political contributions in the election laws, by criminalizing most transactions that had previously been legal under the common law. What was legal before was what was legal under the common law, which was the whole domain of Longley’s Loophole. Due to the gradually growing success of the Marijuana Party Tax Credit Scheme, the government criminalized most of the original Contributor’s Choice Concept arrangements, in order to stop that. However, those changes yet left, after one more registered step was added, a significant domain of Longley’s Loophole arrangements still open within the matrix of possible legal political contributions and tax credits, as arranged by auditable activities within registered entities’ Participation Premium Plan.
The established systems of HUGE LIES have continued to be able to cruise on autopilot, simply by Elections Canada & the Canadian Revenue Agency deliberately ignoring and refusing to admit the legal truth in any useful way, in the context where the vast majority of people had already been brainwashed to believe in HUGE LIES. Elections Canada has admitted the legal truth, but only in ways that most people could not understand, unless they took many hours to study the law, in order to figure out the meaning of what was stated in this context. The Canadian Revenue Agency has also been, so far, indirectly behaving in similar ways. The political funding system was able to continue having more than 99% do nothing, while less then 1% did everything, and therefore, the rest of monetary and taxation systems, that were set up through those means, were also able to automatically get worse, since there was already operating an established runaway fascist plutocracy juggernaut.
The political reality of Canada is PRIMARILY PLUTOCRACY.
"Plutocracy" means government by the wealthy. Plutocracy is government through the money supply. Plutocracy is government by the money, for the money, through controlling the supply of money inside of that system. Since the money supply and the use of money was dominated by corporations, it is also a form of corporatism. The greatest source of "wealth" of that plutocracy is the legal power to create the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts, which fraud by privately controlled banks the governments enforce. According to the original definitions, when corporations control the government, then that is "fascism." However, plutocracy can also use "socialism" in similar ways that plutocracy uses "fascism." Both "communism" and "capitalism," during history, have been mostly false front fakes, which were ideologies exploited by plutocracy, to actually advance the overall agenda of that plutocracy. Almost all of the language of economics was deliberately misleading. That language was an expression of the biggest bullies’ bullshit social stories. Almost all of the established theories about economics and political economy were BULLSHIT!
FOLLOW THE MONEY TO ITS SOURCE!
The current power of the plutocracy is based on it having the power to make "money" out of nothing as debts, which then can control everything else. The ability of private banks to make fiat "money" out of nothing, as debts, and then to use that power to decide which organizations were funded, was backed up by the government forcing everyone else to pay their taxes with that fiat money, and by the legislation that defines and enforces legal tender laws. The central fraud of the central banks, as well as the whole financial system, is something that is built upon LEGALIZED LIES, BACKED BY LEGALIZED VIOLENCE. The money system can not exist unless it is backed by murder. Those combined money/murder systems have been automatically getting worse, faster, while the real funding of politics in Canada continued to display all of the aspects and facets that were consistent with that social situation. For several years, the governing political party has had more money than all of the opposition parties combined! The funding of politics continued to provide the maximum leverage to serve the interests of a fascist police state, serving the fascist plutocracy. PLUTOCRACY WAS THE CENTRAL FACT IN CANADIAN POLITICS, AND THE FUNDING OF POLITICS WAS THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF THAT CENTRAL SOCIAL FACT!
Civilizations were ALWAYS organized systems of lies, operating robberies. Those doing that the most were the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence. Societies end up being controlled by the people who were the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, who promoted impossible ideals, that always backfired, and caused the opposite things to happen in the real world. Therefore, ideologies like "socialism," "fascism," "communism," and "capitalism," ETC., were actually always almost totally BULLSHIT. For centuries, the reality has primarily been PLUTOCRACY, run by a Private Property Party, while the various mainstream political parties have only been various factions of that overall Private Property Party. The funding of the political process, and the control over the schools and mass media, were always extremely important to maintaining the biggest bullies’ social stories, by brainwashing enough people to believe in BULLSHIT! Huge lies about politics in general, and political contributions in particular, have been instrumental to make and maintain the social systems that we are surrounded by now!
SOME STATISTICS ABOUT TERRIBLE SOCIAL FACTS:
Nothing significant changed in the patterns of political funding,
and political contribution tax credit claims
in more recent years ...
Rough numbers available for 2007 were:
about $9.5 million donations to all EDAs
(about 900 EDAs received contributions)
and about $27.5 million to all parties,
for the total of about $37 million ...
If those all generated the maximum
75% tax credits, that would be
about $28 million tax credits,
out of a maximum potential for
all taxpayers to claim their maximum of
18 million taxpayers claiming $650 each,
or about $12 billion, which means that
only 0.2% was claimed, while
99.8% of potential tax credit
was not claimed in 2007 ...
which follows the pattern of statistics in previous years.
The tax credit statistics for 2008, until now, have not changed significantly from those back in 2007, nor from any of the previous years, back to 1974. (In 2014, there were about 1,200 EDAs total across Canada.) The potential of this tax credit scheme is astronomical, in the sense that it is measured in the magnitude of 10 billion. Which is a number as far away from common sense as is the speed of light squared, (since 300,000 times 300,000 is 9 billion)
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/dailyupdate/view/63
The estimated and projected cost of the tax credit for political contributions increased from $22-million in 2004 (an election year) to $26-million in 2005, $24-million in 2006 (another election year). Then it dropped to $20-million in 2007 only to increase to $32 million in 2008 (another election year). The projected amount for 2009 is $20-million, and $21-million in 2010 (Source: Canada, Department of Finance, Tax Expenditures and Evaluation, 2010).
The cost of the tax credit depends heavily on the “take-up rate” — the percentage of donors who actually claim the tax credit. Stanbury’s previous research based on Revenue Canada data showed that between 1974 and 1988, the take-up rate for individual donors was in the range of 43 per cent to 65 per cent.
Federal government spent $36.3 million on tax credits for donations to political parties in 2010.
If the total number of taxpayers is about 18 million, and each could claim a maximum $650 tax credit, then 0.3% of that potential was realized in 2010, which appears 0.1% UP from the 0.2% before. (There are now about a thousand local EDAs that have the right to issue official receipts for tax credits, while before there were only about dozen parties that could do so.)
THE BASIC FACT THAT 99% OF CANADIANS DO NOT PARTICIPATE PERSISTS. THE OVERWHELMING VAST MAJORITY OF CANADIANS PREFER TO DO NOTHING, RATHER THAN PARTICIPATE IN REGISTERED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, DESPITE THAT THEY COULD ARRANGE TO MAKE AN AFTER-TAX PERSONAL PROFIT FROM ENGAGING IN PARTICIPATION PREMIUM ARRANGEMENTS. THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPERATE THROUGH REGISTERED MARIJUANA PARTY ELECTORAL DISTRICT ASSOCIATIONS CONTINUES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL CANADIAN TAXPAYERS, HOWEVER, ALMOST NONE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.
To REPEAT those central social facts:
99% of taxpayers never participated.
99.7% of the dollar value
of total potential political
tax credits are not used!
There is NO good rationale
for central social facts that
99% of Canadians always
act as incompetent idiots
that never use their own
political power to
claim tax credits.
The reasons to not participate are based on
various combinations of ignorance and fear.
But nevertheless, those are the FACTS,
& they have been the facts since 1974,
when those political tax credits started.
Theoretically, there are citizens with the power to elect politicians that will represent their interests, but, IN FACT, the overwhelming majority of Canadians always acted like incompetent idiots, which have been enslaved within a money-as-debt system defrauding them blind. A political contribution tax credit that was explicitly intended to "encourage more public participation" has never yet worked, and the only time it began to work through the previous Marijuana Party Tax Credit Scheme, the government changed the law in 2004 to try to try to stop that from happening. Those are social facts revealed by tax credit statistics and the history of election law. In the real world, the history of the role of money in the political processes, and the control over the flow of information by those who own the means of production and communication, has made "democracy" become a cruel joke and a dismal failure.
Social reality was based on lies, backed by coercions.
Carrots and sticks prevailed over evidence and logic!
Agreeing with huge lies was rewarded.
Disagreeing might lead to punishment.
Since real politics was controlled by
lies and coercions, ‘rational debate’
has been trivialized by that reality!
Since the established powers can unilaterally change the rules of the political games that we are forced to play in, there is not much reasonable hope that those changes will make things be better. Instead, the real changes are almost totally hypocritical, whereby “advancing democracy” is the excuse employed to actually force it backwards. The global pirates assert various historical claims to own Canada. However, the Canadian people have constitutional rights to control Canada. That dynamic tension between reality and rights is on-going. According to legal theory, the citizens can control politics, which can control their political economy. However, in practice, the control of the political economy controls politics, because the accumulated historical consequences of the monetary system power already have run amok. Citizens should direct their government. However, enough Canadian citizens have become nothing more than consumers of bullshit to enable a tiny elite to control them. Enough Canadians tacitly deliver uninformed consent to the Canadian government to privatize the powers of the government, which should be directed by the people. By and large, enough Canadians are sufficiently ignorant to allow themselves to be routinely robbed blind. The younger and poorer you are, then the worse that is becoming for you.
It is not an accident that 99% of Canadians never significantly participated in funding "their" political process, and that has been developing a vicious cycle whereby the situation was self-perpetuating. What actually happens is what is actually intended! That is why the people who should vote the most actually vote the least. Those who should care the most about the effect of politics upon their future are those who have been effectively brainwashed to care the least, and therefore, to not participate. After working on this issue since 1984, and discussing it with a very large number of very different people during that time, the Party Leader believes that he knows what he is talking about, but knowing that does not help change anything. Unfortunately, the conclusions are that all the senior levels of government and government agencies are run by professional liars, and that there are no signs that the public would do anything practical to change that. It would take political miracles for those who should participate, but almost never actually do, to start to participate, instead of doing nothing. It would take even bigger political miracles for that awakening and enlightenment to then not be wiped out by even more legalized lies and violence as the real response to that from our established governments.
TO AGAIN REPEAT THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT:
The social fact that 99% of Canadians did not significantly participate in funding the political process was the main symptom, as well as the continuing cause, of everything else. That social fact is our crucial CATCH 22, or double-bind paradox, that “Canada” is trapped within. At the present time, the facts about the political contribution tax credit clearly demonstrate that there is no reasonable hope for democracy in Canada within the foreseeable future.
Lies about political contributions became runaway lies which amplified every other lie, so that our current society is almost totally based on legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, and the funding of politics has become runaway vicious spirals driving that to automatically get worse, faster, due to the ways the monetary and taxation systems have already been made and maintained, due to the previous history of the funding of politics almost totally dominated by tiny, tiny minorities of the people, while the vast majority of the people continued to behave like incompetent political idiots, who never use their own rights and freedoms, due to the long history of them being lied to and threatened by governments, which were actually being controlled by the dominate political parties being funding by tiny, tiny minorities of the overall population. The real history of the funding of politics has driven the existing monetary and taxation systems to become so extremely unbalanced that those are psychotic criminal insanities. The schools and mass media mostly misinform people about everything regarding politics, in proportion to how important those issues are. The schools and mass media have tended to use the methods of lying by omission regarding the ways that the monetary and taxation systems really work! LEARNING HOW TO OPERATE A REGISTERED EDA IS A BABY STEP TOWARDS ATTEMPTING TO FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE, BY TRYING TO BREAK OUT OF THE VICIOUS SPIRALS OF THE FUNDING OF POLITICS BEING DOMINATED BY TINY, TINY MINORITIES, WHILE THE VAST MAJORITY CONTINUE TO DO NOTHING.
The continuing failure of the political tax credit to increase participation symbolizes the continuing amplification of growing global gaps between the 1% VERSUS the 99%. (And, the greater real gap between the topmost 0.01% and the rest of the 99.99%.) Canada would have to go through horrible transformations to more fully realize the accelerating results of the continuing chasm between the 1% VERSUS the 99%. (Or, actually more like the 0.01% VERSUS other 99.99%!) Canada used to be a country with a relatively low level of income inequality, but that is changing fast! It is terrible thing to imagine what Canada would look like after globalization and privatization forces transformed Canada to resemble more of what most of the rest of the world already looks like! Over and over again, the pattern is repeating itself that the vast majority of Canadians barely have a clue about how their monetary and taxation systems really work, and an expression of their ignorance is that more 99% of the political contribution tax credit was never claimed, since the overwhelming vast majority are too ignorant, intimidated, and/or apathetic to know about, or act, in their own interest, and government agencies continue to keep them that way, with the assistance of the school systems and the mass media.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms asserts Canadians have freedom to register their own political activities, and to obtain a tax credit while doing so, BUT, 99% never do. Marijuana Party Electoral District Associations are a theoretical way to improve that situation. Canadian ideals enshrined in law say we all should participate! Getting more people to participate in EDAs is a theoretical solution to these problems. Preventing those with the most money from continuing to dominate the flow of information to voters, and thus to corrupt the political processes, is only one aspect of the problem. Another, more important, way to make democracy work better would be to have many more people participate in funding the political processes. Unless more people participated, then attempts to limit way that the few who do can will always end up backfiring.
In the real world, most people act according to
established social habits, learned by imitation.
Despite the fact that all Canadians have rights,
more than 99% of them failed to act on rights!
Therefore, even though all taxpayers in Canada have a legal right to become party association Officers, and obtain a modest after-tax personal profit from participating in the registered ways that they wanted, the social facts obstinately continue to be that more than 99% of Canadians prefer to do nothing, rather than participate in any registered politics. IN FACT, 99% OF CANADIANS CONTINUE ACTING LIKE ZOMBIE SHEEPLE.
Before 2004, less than 1 in 1,000 people would actually begin to participate through the Marijuana Party, after learning partially about their opportunities, after being told they have a legal right to do so. After 2004, less than 1 in 10,000 people would begin. Thus, this scheme was a marketing nightmare, where it cost more money to try to inform people of their rights than was made back in return from people doing so. Therefore, efforts to encourage more people to participate in politics in this way gradually went bankrupt, rather than grew, especially since, in the few cases where a small and growing group began to participate more and more for a few years, then the governments responded to stop that, and thus, participation was hard to get going, while easy to stop.
But nevertheless, each EDA has an independent and new opportunity to offer Participation Premiums to the public, or at least to their own circle of friends and family members that trust them. In theory, more people participating could take back control over the political economy’s monetary and taxation systems. However, in practice, the situation continues to be that those with the most money have the most influence over the political process, while the overwhelming vast majority of more than 99% of citizens continue to decide to never do anything. Inside of that context, the changes to the election laws, and the income tax laws, that were supposed to prevent corruption, have frozen the already established corruption in place.
Most people have a list of more or less irrational reasons why they do nothing, which seem to make sense to them, within their own personal circumstances. Unfortunately, there may yet be some rational reasons to be afraid. Asking people to participate inside the Marijuana Party associations tends to elicit the most fear from people who do not want to be seen to publicly associate with the criminal activity around cannabis. After all, the cultural connotations around “Radical Marijuana” were similar to “Crazy Nigga!” People are justifiably afraid that their public participation in a pot party would attract attention to their private affairs, such as from their employer, or from their spouse’s employer, or from the CRA tax authorities, etc.. However, theoretically, any other parties, with other connotations, could also do similar arrangements for taxpayers, and yet, practically none have ever done so! Fear of association with the word marijuana is probably more of just another excuse to do nothing, rather than actually a good reason to continue to do nothing.
Unfortunately, the real history of the funding of politics has always been tilted against small parties or independents, and in favour of big parties. About two thirds of citizens vote, and their votes for bigger parties were worth about $2 per year to those parties, starting in 2004, then phased out from 2011 down to nothing in 2014, to those registered parties got more than the minimum threshold of 2% of the total national votes. That funding was a significant way that those big enough political parties had been granted an allowance since when that began in 2004. However, votes for smaller parties, like the Marijuana Party, were worth nothing, and thus smaller parties had no advantages other than the political contribution tax credit to try to raise funds. People who support the political party that controls the government can indirectly gain great benefits, and often do. People who support small parties tend to never benefit from their group taking over control of the government.
In theory, the best party to adopt using Longley’s Loophole would be the major party that was controlling the government! However, given all of the classic Catch 22, double-bind, paradoxical problems, that appears to require a series of political miracles to ever happen. At the present time, we are stuck with the Marijuana Party having historically been the ONLY party to publicly adopt Longley’s Loophole. We are stuck with the deep dilemma that more TRUTH about our civilization is relegated to being the fringe of the fringe, of the fringe, inside our society. Since our civilization is actually controlled by huge lies, that were legalized and backed up with legalized violence, promoting more radical truth is an extremely difficult and dangerous Fringe Cubed position.
Promoting more Hemp Truth may naturally be associated with the problems regarding promoting more radical truth about anything else, inside of a social system that is currently dominated by huge lies, backed by violence, everywhere one looks. The Radical Marijuana position is necessarily a Fringe Cubed predicament, which is sublimely consistent with the predicament we are placed within by the established monetary and taxation systems, and the social facts that 99% of taxpayers never claim their own political contribution tax credits!
Longley has attempted to inform all of the other registered political parties, and especially the smaller political parties, about Longley’s Loophole, and the history of the Contributor’s Choice Concept, and the current Participation Premium Plan. None of those other parties ever decided to publicly go through Longley’s Loophole, to offer the original Contributor’s Choice Concept opportunities. The ONLY party that did was the Marijuana Party, and long before that, the Rhinoceros Party. None of other registered parties, so far, have publicly promoted their own kinds of Participation Premiums.
Since the current correct legal theory regarding all political contributions must be Lord Brightman’s Mandate Theory based on the original common law, as modified by statutory limits on allowable contributions, which is the same thing as saying Longley’s Loophole Participation Premiums, ALL of the other parties, associations and Candidates are ALWAYS going through Longley’s Loophole Participation Premiums. However, they tend to not recognize or admit that, and most of their contributors still participate at the lowest level by default.
As far as is now known, none of the other registered political entities are attempting to inform all taxpayers about their full legal rights to participate. But nevertheless, their actual transactions are necessarily taking place in the matrix of the overall correct legal theory of political contributions. Therefore, ALL registered entities are currently engaged in various kinds of Longley’s Loophole Participation Premium arrangements, because all possible legal political contributions necessarily do.
It would be difficult to tell whether any other registered party or EDA agency began taking more informal or unannounced advantage of Participation Premiums. Everything they are doing now already is doing that, although most of their actual financial contributors do not know that. The only difference that adding more possible public admission and promotion of Longley’s Loophole Participation Premiums does is advertize to potential contributors, to attempt to engage, inform, and motivate them to participate. The correct legal theory is not changed by efforts to inform more people about it. To Repeat: The correct legal theory of political contributions was the original common law, as stated by Lord Brightman, and as that was then modified by the correct statutory interpretation of the election laws, and income tax laws, that limited allowable political contributions by criminalizing making contributions outside of those legislated limits.
Longley’s Loophole Participation Premiums ARE CORRECT CONTRIBUTIONS.
The past triumphs of dishonesty and absurd prejudice pronounced as the law about political contribution rights and freedoms were the reasons why people became so totally misinformed, as a wide-spread social consensus became based on those lies. In general, since 99% of people have the social habits not to be interested, and to rather do nothing, than to participate, all of the other political parties, as well as the mass media, and various tax professionals, have also adapted to that social situation by deliberately ignoring this, and, so far, have not informed the public about their legal rights to obtain participation premiums.
Of course, all other parties and associations and candidates could benefit from better understanding the political contribution tax credit laws. However, since the vast majority of the public is not interested, and nobody else was attempting to tell them, but the Marijuana Party, we continue to dwell in the twilight zone, within the surreality of a fake democracy, that is really a fascist plutocracy.
Of course, there is nothing that necessarily connects marijuana laws to Longley’s Loophole Participation Premiums. It was just a historical co-incidence that the only registered party that was willing to offer the public, from 2000 to 2003, the original Longley’s Loophole Contributors’ Choice Concept was the Marijuana Party. All other registered parties could promote any possible political purpose through Longley’s Loophole. However, the actual history of the development of this idea was first as a Green Rhino candidate in the 1984 elections, then as a registered agent of the Rhinoceros Party, from 1985 to 1987, and now, through the Marijuana Party, from 2000 up until NOW ...
Due to the name of this party, there is an apparent association of cannabis with these tax credits. Although that association is not necessary, it nevertheless is perceived. History set up the situation where the ONLY registered political parties that would promote Longley’s Loophole were the original Rhinoceros Party, and now the Marijuana Party. Due to that history, our EDAs are stuck with an association with the word "marijuana."
Only cultures that are crazy and corrupt to the core could criminalize cannabis!
EVERY CANADIAN TAXPAYER SHOULD PROTEST
THEIR MONEY WASTED ON POT PROHIBITION!
There are millions of people with education and income, that have never claimed political contribution tax credits, that also would like to see cannabis be legalized, who should participate, because our efforts to encourage more participation can be backed up with them regaining control of several hundred after-tax dollars of their own money each year. They would profit from protesting, when the government had to refund some of their tax money because they legally participated in registered politics, and therefore, were entitled to claim their political contribution tax credit. Perhaps it may initially sound complicated, but it is still legally possible. It only requires going through the the steps of the registration processes, as required by law, as administered by Elections Canada. The details of the tax credit may initially sound complicated to calculate, but, after becoming more familiar with them, they are actually simple. Nothing needed to be able do to register political activities takes more than a high school level of competence to complete.
However, most people who believe that “legalizing” marijuana back into the established money and tax systems would be sufficient fail to face the facts that the marijuana laws were based upon lies, backed by enforcement, because of the way the money and tax systems were taken over by a tiny ruling class funding the political processes and flows of information. The vast majority of people who believe that marijuana should be “legalized” act like political idiots, that never participate in funding politics. As well, most of the apparent “leaders” of the mainstream marijuana movements in favour of legalization of marijuana support the mainstream ideas being promoted by bigger political parties. Generally speaking, the people that the mass media recognize as “leaders” of the legalize marijuana movements are mainstream morons and reactionary revolutionaries. Just like 99% of the rest of Canadians, they too deliberately ignore the political contribution tax credit potential, and are not interested in understanding the plutocracy, although that actually made and maintains pot prohibition.
It is because less than 1% funded 100% of our politics that it was possible for international pressures to cause Canada to criminalize cannabis, back when there was no cannabis problem in Canada whatsoever. Pot prohibition created all of its associated problems, none of which existed before cannabis was criminalized! Criminalizing cannabis was a kind of false flag attack, where our real enemies told us huge lies about who our enemy was, and persuaded us to attack the false enemy "marijuana."
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was a Lie.
Canadians were tricked by huge lies to start a "war on drugs" based on deceits. International pressures promoting huge lies about marijuana, or as the government tends to spell it, marihuana, were able to cause Canada to go along with increasingly criminalizing cannabis. That backfired for everyone else, except for the highest levels of organized crime, the international bankers, and the related lower levels of organized crime, while AROUND AND AROUND THAT WENT ... The basic system imposed is debt slavery, backed by wars based on deceits!
MARIJUANA LAWS ARE SYMBOLS OF THE SOCIAL FACT PATTERNS
DEMONSTRATING DEBT SLAVERY AND WARS BASED ON DECEITS!
THOSE DEBT INSANITIES ARE HEADING TOWARD WORLD WAR III.
In order to understand why marijuana stays illegal, or may be "legalized" in the worst possible ways by the Liberal Party of Canada ("legalized" in the worst possible ways. That is the context in which pot prohibition was made and maintained. Unless we could do something to radically change the banking, monetary and taxation legislation, then we would predict that, when marijuana was ever legalized, it would likely be done in the worst possible ways. The history of the funding of politics indicates that, as long as the money system continues to be so extremely bad, and automatically getting worse, then hemp will continue to suffer from being controlled by the people who control our entire culture through huge lies, backed up with lots of violence, regarding everything else.
Marijuana laws continue to simply be the single most salient symbol of the way our entire society is controlled by frauds. The people who control the money system also control the marijuana system within that. That supreme gang of organized criminals, the biggest gangsters, are the international bankers. Those banksters were the enemies of marijuana. They are the Fraud Kings! They have taken control of the money supply, and thereby they control governments. Talking about "legalizing marijuana" that does not talk about changing the money system fails to address the really significant social problems. That is not radical enough. It is because the money system was already totally corrupted, and because the vast majority of people never participated in funding the political process, that it was possible to build a culture in which cannabis was criminalized. The banksters were behind criminalizing cannabis, since they are the ones that benefit all the way around from more organized crime, since they ARE the supreme organized criminals, that control governments.
Established ruling classes direct the conglomerate corporations that overwhelmingly dominate the mass media information flow to citizens, including during elections. Thus, their central fraud of privatized fiat money-as-debt is supported and maintained by mass media professionally lying by omission about important public issues almost all the time. The huge lies about hemp were symbolic of the huge lies about everything else, especially including political contributions and the monetary system! The vast majority of public opinion is the result of the best brainwashing that money could buy. BUT NEVERTHELESS, anything sufficient that we could do must try to fight fire with fire by participating through the registered political money system.
So far as is now known, the Marijuana Party continues to be the ONLY registered political party PUBLICLY offering as full an ability to go through Longley's Loophole as the law allows. All other parties operate within the same legal frame of reference, but they tend to ignore that, which works since the overwhelming vast majority of citizens also ignore all of that too, and voters seem to want to continue to be ignorant of their own monetary and taxation systems. Thus, there is already a vicious cycle where the mass media ignore what the people are most ignorant of, while the other political parties so far either want to keep citizens ignorant, or are themselves also ignorant too. And so, year after year, every individual resident taxpayer in Canada, or any Canadian citizen that pays Canadian taxes, have the legal right to regain control over $650 of their own tax money, BUT, 99.7% of that potential is never used.
The irony that not participating proves that
they ARE acting like incompetent idiots was
not relevant to change that they still are!
Marijuana Party Electoral District Associations are a theoretical way to enable more people to participate. Tens of billions of dollars of potential exist every year ... yet, even the best the Marijuana Party ever did before was 0.0001% of that potential in 2003, while all the parties combined continue to do less than 0.3% of the total tax credit potential. Pot prohibition is the single stupidest way that taxpayers were forced to waste billions of dollars every year, in ways that do not work, but rather backfired for everyone except organized criminals, and the supreme organized criminals that control our governments. Thus, again, pot prohibition, and the failure to participate in the funding of politics demonstrates the growing grand canyon chasms in society, illustrating in these two cases that we waste billions of dollars per year doing insane things based on huge lies, while we could instead invest billions of dollars per year doing saner things. It is typical of our times that our society becomes more insane every year, since pot prohibition is going through psychotic breakdowns, while democracy is dying!
The ways that the truth about cannabis made no difference to marijuana laws, and the ways that the truth about political contribution laws made no difference to politics, are directly related! Huge lies are actually controlling what is happening, and therefore, everything is actually getting worse, in ways which are spinning out of human control! However, theoretically, there is great potential to be gained from fully legalizing the hemp plant, in order to cultivate more cannabis, and there is even greater potential to be gained by people starting to exercise their political rights and freedoms!
By analogy to the game of hockey, there are tens of millions of potential pucks, in the form of theoretical political contribution tax credits, since every year, there are tens of millions of Canadian taxpayers that have the legal right to participate. Registering an EDA is like being able to pick up a hockey stick, with which we are allowed to try to slap shot those pucks, to attempt to send them into the goal of an actual registered political participation. However, the degree of the triumphs of the past brainwashing of Canadians to make them believe in bullshit continues to result in a very, very, very low score in that game.
Another analogy is that the political contribution tax credit potential seems like the Spanish traditional children's party piñata, which is a brightly-coloured paper container filled with sweets and/or toys, that is generally suspended on a rope from a tree branch or ceiling, that a succession of blindfolded, stick-wielding children try to break open. In this analogy, the potential of the political tax credit is the piñata.
The Marijuana Party was able to knock some candies off of the outside, but the rules were changed before we could break open the piñata. The total overt use of Longley's Loophole from 1984 until 2012 was about a few hundred thousand dollars from several hundred different people. However, those hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions took place within the context of a combined provincial and Federal potential political tax credit claims in Canada of over 25 billion dollars annually.
When the Party Leader, and others who have worked towards that goal, both Federally and provincially, were just beginning to succeed, then the governments involved either took away our stick, or raised the piñata out of our reach! We predicted that pattern explicitly, when the Marijuana Party began promoting the tax credit, that it would take a few years to get it going, but then the government would change the law to stop it. Clearly, what we explicitly predicted in 2000 came to pass in 2004.
Any degree of "democracy" acts as a loophole in government, but real governments do everything they can to keep that loophole as closed off as possible. That situation drove the deeper history of the political contribution tax credit. Political corruption scandals motivated politicians to change the election laws in ways that were supposed to enshrine more of the ideals of democracy, but the reality kept on getting worse and worse, and unfortunately, that will likely drive the future contexts too. IF we gradually succeeded in developing the tax credit potential amongst a small, but growing, circle of participants, before the rate of participation could grow any further, the government may simply abolish the political contribution tax credit instead. Indeed, the established governments will probably maintain their illusions of a fake democracy, backed up by whatever legal or illegal means that those established governments may decide to deploy.
In 1974, the political contribution tax credit provisions were deliberately enacted to increase public participation in registered political parties. However, governments have done everything they could, both illegally and legally, to stop participation rates from significantly increasing. Thus, the on-going dilemma presented by the existence of the political tax credit, as more than a ten billion dollar per year potential, dangling in front of us all ... BUT, which the vast majority of people deliberately ignore. Our established governments maintain that overall context of a fake democracy, wherein more than 99% of Canadian citizens and taxpayers always act like political idiots. IF the political tax credit ever started to really work, then democracy could start to really work, but then, it would be more likely that the government would abolish that tax credit, rather than allow it to continue to work. We must expect that any REAL success to develop more democracy would then meet any even worse REAL backlash against it. Any genuine and long-lasting success would have to work through that whole process.
If Canadian citizens and taxpayers stopped acting like incompetent political idiots, then they would NO longer allow the Canadian money supply to operate as a privatized fiat money-as-debt system. However, almost all Canadians actually DO act like idiots, that never enjoy their own rights and freedoms, and our governments probably would do whatever they could to make sure things stayed that way. But nevertheless, the theory of making greater use of information through democracy still entices us, and the political tax credit and its potential democratic ideals have the force of law, at the present time, and therefore, that potential will continue to exist, until the government changed the law to restrict or abolish that tax credit in some way in the future. As long as the political tax credit exists, and is available to ALL Canadian taxpayers, then it continues to be the ONE REAL THING that we can do, and which would theoretically be the most important to do ... although, one can reasonably expect that any future success at doing that would backfire again in the future, as it already did in the past, since IF more people started to participate, the government would probably respond by changing the laws again to try to wipe that out ...
At least, then we could stop trying to make it work.
However, as long as it exists, the piñata is there!!!
Given the nature of the obstruction to the potential of the political tax credit from governments, it remains only a theoretical possibility, which any EDA has the right to try to realize. Offering the legal tools of a registered EDA theoretically enables more Canadians to make an after-tax profit from protesting, which would be the most effective protest possible, since the protesting returns tax money to the control of the individual, while costing the government money.
BUT, THE STANDING SOCIAL FACTS CONTINUE:
The vast majority are abysmally ignorant,
and they feel they want to stay that way!
Established systems really want
things to be like that, & work to
keep social situations like that:
POLITICAL FUNDING
ENFORCING FRAUDS
The funding of the political processes, both in the domination of the flow of information to voters, and various forms of bribery of government officials, has always been the lynch pin and keystone of the established system, and thus the history of the political contribution tax credit has become a political experiment which has only demonstrated what the social facts were, rather than ever changed what was already built.
The tax credit was a "material incentive to encourage people to participate," but those ideals have always been sabotaged by governments, through the use of their lies and hypocrisy, backed up with dubious threats of legal action, which were effective against the vast majority of the population, that was always abysmally ignorant, and intimidated, and so apathetic, and thus easy to scare away. Participation Premiums via Political Contribution Credits are of benefit, even if only a very small group will do it for themselves. The fact that more than 99% of Canadian taxpayers usually do not claim their political contribution tax credits is not something that rationally justifies not claiming one's own credit Moreover, even when a vast majority continue to act like "bah, sheeple" the political tax credit can still provide real benefits to those few who may really do it!
Anyone via an official position in an EDA
could arrange participation premiums.
Doing that requires understanding more about
the monetary and taxation systems, which IS
what Canadians should really do, instead of
99% of them acting like incompetent idiots.
However, since real politics was
primarily based upon Huge Lies,
backed up by lots of violence,
it makes sense why citizens
failed to participate more!
We are already inside a runaway fascist plutocracy,
where there seems no reasonable hope for democracy.
No reforms within that could ever become sufficient.
... Only a real radical revolution could be enough!
Unfortunately, the history of the political contribution tax credit does not provide any reasons to believe that our "democracy" is going to survive and flourish, since there is nothing which indicates that the vast majority of citizens will ever stop acting like incompetent political idiots, that usually never participate in funding politics. By default, a tiny minority funds politics, and has enjoyed enormous leverage from doing so. The path of least resistance is not enlightenment which saves democracy, so that it actually flourishes. The path of least resistance is the path of least morality, where the triumph of lies creates a B grade science fiction horror show world. Too bad, so sad, that we appear to be on that horror story path, since the vast majority of Canadian citizens routinely never participate in their "democracy." The majority are too clueless to realize how clueless they are!
All other parties were always implicitly within the legal theory governing political contributions, and thus, they originally did CCC arrangements, and now also follow the PPP, since that is the correct legal theory of political contributions in Canada, after the common law was modified by statutes in 2004, and subsequently. All political parties operated within the overall context legal matrix of allowable political contributions, under the common law as articulated by Lord Brightman, then as restricted by statutes subsequently. All other political parties operated within some subset of possible political contribution arrangements. All other political parties have been informed about this. However, so far, only the Marijuana Party has systematically offered the full legal opportunity to the public to participate, with no other strings attached. As far as we now know, ONLY the Marijuana Party is explicitly offering the PPP to the public, as the full potential, wide-open opportunity to go through what remains legal via Longley's Loophole, made possible for all Canadians by our EDA potential. We hope that will change in the future, with more parties recognizing and admitting and offering more opportunities to register political activities to more Canadians.
Meanwhile, so far as known now, all of the other parties combined have not changed the fact that about 99.7% of the political tax credit lies fallow year after year, ever since 1974, ... despite the stated public purpose of the tax credit was to encourage more participation. For several years, the established pattern of political funding was that the Conservative Party had more money than all the rest of the registered parties combined, while the Marijuana Party had the least money of any of the other registered parties. Clearly, the established systems are excelling at fooling enough of the people enough of the time.
IT IS A SURREAL REALITY THAT CANADIANS LIVE IN:
99% OF US ACTED LIKE INCOMPETENT IDIOTS!!!
(& WE SEEM NOT INTERESTED IN CHANGING THAT.)
But nevertheless, the Party Leader can maintain
irrational hopes for series of political miracles,
by being able to empower people to participate.
The Party Leader is doing his best to operate
within the established systems, despite them
being almost inconceivably crazy and corrupt.
Established monetary and taxation systems have
already been built, and so now run automatically!
Democratic ideals have always been subverted
by the established systems of lies and threats!
Given the way money controls politics,
and corrupted politics controls money,
"democracy" is already almost dead.
Effective participation rates of less than 1% have long been stagnant.
The most important public powers have
already been privatized, while citizens
mostly do not even know that happened!
Making democracy work better was our ideal goal!
Since more than 99% of Canadians never participated,
and our actual government wanted to keep it that way,
there is an abundance of theoretical ways to improve,
but no known practical ways to overcome obstacles?
It is up to individuals to participate to do it!
Operating any Electoral District Association
permits interested Canadians to participate.
It is better to attempt to do one thing, than nothing.
Using political tax credits is one thing we should do!
TO REPEAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THEORETICAL POINTS:
The international bankers are the biggest gangsters, those banksters, were originally behind criminalizing cannabis, because they were able to take control over the money systems of almost all the countries in the world, and thereby even more control governments. It was NOT an accident that the "Drug Wars" enabled organized crime to flourish, because, actually governments are the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, which are currently the banksters. Those banksters, and the big corporations that grew up around the ability of those banksters to make the public "money" supply out of nothing, were able to make and maintain the overall systems of debt slavery, backed by wars based on deceits. The War on Drugs was one of those wars based on deceits. The War on Marijuana was the majority of the War on Drugs.
For a long time, we have been stuck inside of the vicious spirals of the triumphs of the banksters, the Fraud Kings! Pot prohibition fits inside of the established fascist plutocracy that controls Canada. Since we are we are stuck inside of that vicious cycle, this article repeats those points, as the most important issues to be understood and acted upon! It was the funding of the political processes by a tiny minority which enabled them to control what governments did, and that system was the reason why marijuana laws were passed, and have been maintained, in ways that were based on huge lies, which deliberately ignored the facts about marijuana, and moreover, the greater potential of the cannabis plant in general. It was the overall ways that civilization was integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, that enabled cannabis to be criminalized, and stay that way, for decade after decade, as an enforced fraud, which deliberately ignored more rational evidence and logical arguments. That the Drug Wars, which were mainly the War on Marijuana, enabled organized crime to flourish was driven as a deliberately designed self-fulfilling prophesy, because of the real ways that the governments were actually the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals.
The history of the political contribution tax credit has demonstrated both what the problem is, and why it seems almost impossible to actually fix it. We are living in a fascist plutocracy that was able to build and protect itself, and is still growing bigger and more powerful. Our fake democracy was always usurped by usurers, and automatically deteriorates due to the way the monetary and taxation systems routinely operate.
People need money to live, but the money system is based on the history of dishonesty, backed up by violence, done by organized ruling classes, persistently applying the methods and principles of organized crime through the political processes. They also dominated the public school systems, as well as the mass media, so instead of the central principle of democracy being the education of all citizens, there is a fake education inside of a fake democracy. The oligarchy of the international banksters has consolidated power over all of the Anglo-American world, including Canada, and thereby, also have effectively dominated and integrated into almost all the state governments.
Around and around we are going, stuck in the vicious ruts of fake education and fake democracy, in which the majority of politicians are the banksters' puppets, who are voted for by enough of the masses of muppets, who have been brainwashed to believe in the banksters' bullshit. The history of the evolution of the social pyramid systems was based on a few people who know and act, against a lot that are ignorant and afraid. Those morbid social habits are in vicious feedback loops through each other. Governments must deal with death and taxes. They do, but they mostly actually do so through deceits and frauds, (which frame of reference their controlled opposition also tends to agree to stay within too.)
The government of Canada is fundamentally a military organization. The oldest book on the Art of War starts by saying that "success in war is based on deceit" and ends by saying "spies are the most important soldiers." Those are the same ways that the ruling classes control those who they rule over: lies backed by violence to make and maintain states of ignorance and fear. There has been an overall war against the consciousness of the vast majority of people waged by those at the top of the social pyramid systems. The war against marijuana was one of the aspects of that overall war against consciousness. The result is that we live in a society which has become almost totally based on Huge Lies about everything, and which especially lies about the nature of government itself. (Most people who argue for a more evidence-based and therefore, more logical, set of drug policies tend to NOT do that with respect to understanding government itself.)
Sovereignty is based on the power to rob. Everyone has some power to rob, and power to kill to back up that power to rob. Governments assembled and channeled those powers. The best organized gangsters, the banksters, were able to persistently apply the methods of organized crime to the political processes, (such as through bribery, intimidation, and occasional assassinations of those who could not otherwise be bribed or intimidated) so that most of the successful politicians ended up being the puppets of the banksters, and the other big corporations that developed on the basis of the banksters effectively privatizing the public money supply. Those overall systems were debt slavery, backed by wars based on deceits, in which the war on marijuana was one of the phases of those political processes.
Lies about the nature of government, the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories, surrounded the subsequent privatizations of the power to rob, backed by the power to kill. Marijuana laws were merely of the simplest symbols and most extreme particular examples regarding how almost everything else was based on integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence. The government operates money and murder systems that the overwhelming vast majority of Canadians remain deliberately ignorant about. The triumph of the system of successful frauds eventually becomes its own worst enemy, due to final failure from too much "success." So far, the political contribution tax credit has failed to change the real rates of public participation in any significant ways, although, that was inside the context of the government deliberately trying to prevent tax credit potential from being realized. The vast majority of citizens are trapped in a vicious spiral of being lied to, while being ignorant, and maybe rewarded for agreeing with bullshit. The things which appear to change are which particular groups of politicians are the best available professional hypocrites, that therefore win the elections. Canada is actually degenerating from Colonialism towards Neofeudalism. We are NOT evolving better systems of social lies, to better balance the social rates of robbery. We are stuck in the rut of the well-established and deeply entrenched systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, driving social polarization and the destruction of the natural world through to greater extremes. That path is headed toward the destruction of the natural world, driven by fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, trumping the social polarization effects. After all, since the real social FACTS are that the overwhelming vast majority of Canadians actually act like incompetent political idiots, and similarly so for the rest of the world's population, the most probable longer term consequences will become catastrophic for the younger people and even more so for future generations!
In ideal legal theory, everyone is free and equal, but the real social world consists of billionaires and homeless, which drastically effects their abilities to participate in politics to influence the real use of governmental powers. After adding all those effects together, one can see that Canadians became useless hostages, held in debt slavery by the banksters. The international bankers and bond holders became the pyramidion people in the social pyramid systems. Those systems run by their fiat money false numbers, operating frauds and robberies. They are global pirates privatizing the planet, while transferring most “ownership” of that allegedly privatized planet to a "ruling class" evolving social systems of numbers based on global electronic frauds, backed up with threats from atomic weapons. Those global pirates built Canada, but the same methods that originally built Canada are now being used to destroy the lives of the majority of Canadians.
Since the fundamental structure of the monetary and taxation systems was already almost inconceivably crazy and corrupt, and had been so since Canada began, and gradually has gotten worse, with several decades since 1970 becoming increasingly, extremely bad, accelerating aggravations of the established exponential growth of the MAD Money-As-Debt systems, and since those money systems have already been built, and are working automatically now to do more of what they were designed to do, the theory of greater use of the political tax credit flies in the face of the social fact that the overwhelming vast majority of Canadians continue to act like political idiots that never have used their own political power. They mostly accept their status as debt slaves, constantly being driven deeper in debt. They tend to refuse to face the social facts that there was a feedback through the death controls to the debt controls. They tend to deliberately ignore that the money system depends on the murder system.
The vast majority of Canadians always act like political idiots, and useless hostages, who continue to be childishly like that, while mostly not knowing that they are doing that, and not being interested in learning about that. Meanwhile, Canada follows behind the rest of the world, as various other countries are devolving from debt slavery into debt insanity, as their debts become too astronomically large to manage. Although Canada is relatively one of the best off countries in the world, we too are inside of the established MAD Money-As-Debt systems, and therefore, our debt slavery is also headed towards becoming debt insanity. In general, the younger you are, the more you are being lied to, cheated and robbed by the political system you were born into. The younger and poorer you are, the less and less objectively real our fake democracy actually is, as far as you are concerned.
We should democratize the death controls, in order to democratize the debt controls. However, instead, we allow the increasingly globalized privatization of the planet, including Canada, to take place through organized lies and robberies, maintained by governments which are effectively subservient to the banks and corporations that those governments had originally chartered and legislated. The combination of the already established money and tax systems, along with the power of money throughout all other aspects of politics, has created vicious cycles of fake democracy. Since money flows through every social endeavour, everywhere one looks there has been subversions and perversion of all aspects of our social systems. Our fiat money-as-debt systems are fundamentally fraudulent accounting systems that spread through every aspect of our society, like a totally metastasized cancer, or a parasite that is killing its host.
The established systems are already extremely unbalanced, and are automatically getting more unbalanced ... Unfortunately, the most realistic future is not for a series of political miracles whereby enough people will wake up and participate. The most realistic future is for our already runaway fascist plutocracy juggernaut to continue to control the whole world with lies, backed by violence, until it caused the established systems to go through collapses to genocides and democides, with the majority of humanity becoming its road-kill.
The runaway social polarization is also related to even worse runaway destruction of the natural world, caused by operating through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, which make "money" out of nothing, as debts, in ways which get away with ignoring the laws of nature, and so, which should be seen, even by common sense, as being obviously absurd and backwards, but which enforced frauds have become so triumphant in dominating every aspect of society that most people have been brainwashed to accept that bullshit, and have been conditioned for many generations to adapt to living inside of a society dominated by huge legalized lies, backed up by legalized violence. Science and technology trillions of times more powerful and capable is being channeled through social pyramid systems based on lies, backed by violence, keeping people deliberately ignorant and afraid, in ways which are driving social polarization, and destruction of the natural world, which are many orders of magnitude worse than anything that previously happened in known human history.
Neolithic Civilization has become globally and astronomically magnified. However, it is still based on organized lies, operating organized robbery, actively privatizing the entire planet, into the hands of fewer "owners" which benefit from the entire system of claims and coercions that maintains those private property systems. Their private property party has a “steering committee” of [“trillionaire mass murderers”->http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=CMPmarijuanaparty&Number=5378&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5" class="spip_out">Canadian "legalization" story, 2015 ... ??? that directs civilization to benefit the top 1%, and especially the top 0.01% of the people more and more, while the bottom 90% sinks, (and the other 9% are mostly treading water, while they struggle to try to swim up with the top 1%, rather than sink down with the bottom 90%.)
There is no doubt that the middle class is being wiped out, however, none of the mainstream politicians who pretend to care about that issue will address the deeper causes due to the basic structure of the monetary and taxation systems being fundamentally fraudulent. The basic principle of science, the conservation of energy, asserts that nothing can be created out of nothing, or sent to nothing. However, the established monetary systems are the runaway frauds perpetrated by private banks, backed by the force of government, which make "money" out of nothing, as debts, which "money" also disappears back to nothing when those debts disappear. The public spaces, dominated by the big political parties, as aided and abetted by the public school systems, and mass media, promote the biggest bullies’ bullshit social stories, and therefore, more radical truth about the social facts has about the same presence as the actual use of the political contribution tax credit ...
However, there appears to be nothing which is practically possible within the established political systems to do anything about those trends. Instead, the most successful politicians continue to be the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. The source of that 99% VERSUS the 1% was, and continues to be, the funding of the political processes. That 99% funded nothing, while 1% funded everything, is becoming a large scale, apparently fatal, political disease, which is killing democracy.
More people enjoying their Participation Premiums, through Electoral District Associations, is the ONLY theoretically possible material solution to that problem which exists in the Canadian context at this time, which is why the Marijuana Party is promoting that kind of registered political activity. Since the history of pot prohibition was the result of the funding of politics in the past, the only good solutions would be to change the funding of politics in the future. However, at the present time, everything is getting worse, faster ...
REPEATING AGAIN THE PRIMARY POINTS:
There already are human and industrial ecologies which rapidly drive their own evolution. The world is being dominated by the best organized criminal gangs, operating through the biggest banks, and the corporations that have grown up around those banks. Those are all legalized lies, operating systemic frauds, as symbolic robberies. They have thoroughly permeated every issue one examines. Those biggest systems of global piracy have been rapidly privatizing the planet. There is a relatively small group actively being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, while there is a much larger group that is going along with those lies. Marijuana laws were merely simple symbols or extreme examples of the overall pattern of social facts, namely, debt slavery backed by wars based on deceits.
Civilization is, and must be, some system of organized lies operating organized robberies. The lies are different at different levels, however, money systems and murder systems were always connected. Going against those huge lies risks going against the violence that backs those lies up. The debt controls evolved from the death controls, which feed back to permit the money system to pay for the murder system. The murder system keeps the money system going, while the money system directs the murder system. Governments are territorial gangsters, that are dominated by the international banksters.
Taxpayers who do not claim their own tax credits can fairly be described as acting like Zombie Sheeple. Taxpayers are routinely being fleeced, and likely are being set up to be slaughtered. They are mostly sleepwalking through Wonderland Matrix Bizarro Worlds, where everything political is proportionately backwards and distorted. One illustration of the degree to which we are stuck inside of a Wonderland Matrix Bizarro World, where everything is patently absurd and backwards, is the way that hemp, the single best plant on the planet for people, for food, fiber, fun and medicine, became re-branded as "marijuana which was almost as bad as murder," and those huge lies were backed up with violence for decades, while more rational evidence and logical arguments were deliberately ignored by the established sociopolitical systems, that are based on being able to back up lies with violence, and therefore, do not care about anything else but being able to continue to do that.
The society that we are living inside of now has been based on enforced frauds, by being able to back up legalized lies with legalized violence, for a long, long time. For generation after generation, the majority of people have adapted to living inside of that context, where frauds were enforced, and so, agreeing with frauds was rewarded, while not agreeing with frauds was punished. Of course, from the perspective of their own life history, almost all Canadian taxpayers felt it was practical for them to adapt to the big bullies by adopting or accepting their bullshit. Within the total circumstances of their personal life, it almost always made short-term sense to them to not to bother to participate. But nevertheless, the central social fact in Canadian politics is that 99% of Canadians always acted like incompetent political idiots, and one theoretical solution to that problem is for them to begin to participate in Electoral District Associations!
From the perspective of our theoretical individual rights and freedoms, and considering the long-term consequences upon us of the monetary and taxation laws, it is irrational and irresponsible to not to participate to the maximum possible. However, in the current Canadian reality, more than 99% of Canadians do not, and do not feel it is practical for them to bother to participate in registered politics.
From an objective point of view, the historical statistics about the political contribution tax credit, in the context of the overall funding of the political processes, demonstrates the degree to which our society now looks like it is terminally sick and insane, due to the degree that everything is almost totally dominated by entrenched systems of backing up lies with violence, (within which context pot prohibition was one symbolic example of backing up lies with violence never been able to stop those lies from being false, and therefore, overall, eventually driving pot prohibition towards some series of psychotic breakdowns.) The same basic concepts also apply to the ways that the monetary and taxation systems operate, and therefore, the political contribution tax credit was another of the symbolic examples of that. This set of social facts, about theoretical rights and freedoms having less than 1% practical reality, is a facet and symptom of the larger systems that created and sustained these sorts of situations.
Explaining the standing social facts takes understanding the history of the social pyramid systems from Neolithic Civilizations onward, which requires the vast majority of people continue to be ignorant and afraid, and thus not use their own power to participate in funding politics. There was a long history of basic imperialism manifesting in the history of the funding of politics in Canada that resulted in building a fascist plutocracy, which has brainwashed the vast majority of people to believe in the bullies’ bullshit view of the world, which requires them not having enough clues about how the money and tax systems really work to be willing and able to participate in controlling those, despite that they theoretically have the constitutional power to do so.
Canada continues to be basically colonial, since Canadians have social habits to NOT participate effectively in the political processes that control their lives, while those who do vote, mostly vote on the basis of what they see on their TV, which means that they only participated on the basis of believing in bullshit, which operated through massive lying by omission. Paradoxically, being successful within the mainstream of society requires agreeing with huge lies, although most people do that by being profoundly ignorant, some do it deliberately. In any case, so far, the vast majority of Canadians are not interested in regaining control over some of their own tax money. Hence, the repeating pattern of social facts regarding the actual funding of our politics have made Canada a fake democracy.
The fact that Canadian citizens do not claim their explicitly political tax credit is symbolic of all the other ways they act like incompetent political idiots regarding the rest of the monetary and taxation systems. Since the vast majority of so-called citizens seem too ignorant to do anything effective to participate in directing the processes that control their own lives, there is inadequate balancing of the rates of social robbery, with the few Vicious Wolves not being effectively resisted by the large population of Docile Sheep. Moreover, the controlled opposition groups, tend to be like Black Sheeple, attempting to lead the Zombie Sheeple backwards, along with those really running these systems, the Vicious Wolves, and their more Domesticated Dogs, all of which tend to exhort Canadians that they all should become better sheep, when they all need to become better wolves. In that overall political context, the vast majority of the people in the mainstream "legalize marijuana" movements tend to be mainstream morons, or reactionary revolutionaries, that amount to being nothing much more than Black Sheeple, exhorting the majority of the Zombie Sheeple, on the basis of superficial analyses of the problems, which then are followed by superficial "solutions" for those problems.
The political tax credit is one particular way that people could participate, and should participate, in order to fight fire with fire, in the sense of participating in registered politics through the election and taxation systems. However, so far that has actually proven that they would rather not, and therefore, they are defaulting to allowing their lives to be controlled by others, and for that to automatically get worse for them, and for their children, and their children’s children.
The long history that made War Kings transformed to make Fraud Kings.
That was the real reason why marijuana laws are based on huge lies, and the truth about marijuana never made any difference to those laws, but rather, the only thing that happened was that those legalized lies were always being backed up by more and more legalized violence! Marijuana shall only become "legalized" in the worst possible ways as long as that manifests inside of some neoprohibitionist regime, or Prohibition 2.0 based upon Reefer Madness 2.0.
"Legalizing marijuana" in ways that were not expressed through more radical truths about how and why cannabis was criminalized in the first place would actually mean that such a "legalization of marijuana" would become too little, too late, and too trivial to matter much. As long as the fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems continue to operate, while the overwhelming vast majority of Canadians continue to act like political idiots, that never participate in funding the political processes, then working for the "legalization of marijuana" inside of those systems is barely worthwhile to bother doing. Operating an Electoral District Association is the best way to promote more Radical Hemp Truth, in the context of more Radical Truths about all other political issues.
IT IS THEORETICALLY IMPERATIVE THAT WE SHOULD ENGAGE IN A DEEPER ANALYSIS OF OUR REAL POLITICAL PROBLEMS, SO THAT WE SHOULD THEN PROMOTE GENUINE SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THAT DEEPER ANALYSIS. However, the vast majority of the more mainstream "legalize marijuana" movements deliberately do NOT do that! The more mainstream "legalize marijuana" movements deliberately ignore the political contribution tax credit potential. They tend to be political idiots, in ways which are similar to how about 99% of Canadians also routinely act like political idiots. The more mainstream "legalize marijuana" movements are too willing to compromise with the old lies. Therefore, the ways that the basic systems were debt slavery, backed by wars based on deceits, (within which context the War on Marijuana was one of those phases of the history of wars based on deceits,) tends to either be not fully understood, or deliberately ignored, by the more mainstream "legalize marijuana" movements.
As long as the basic monetary and taxation systems stay the same, then marijuana would certainly only become "legalized" in the worst possible ways. To fail to understand how and why cannabis was criminalized is to fail to understand what adequate improvements or satisfactory "legalization of marijuana" would mean. To understand how and why cannabis could have been criminalized in such completely corrupt and crazy ways, while that got worse and worse, decade after decade, one has to understand the actual history of the funding of the political processes. That understanding then applies to everything else, as well as applies to ideas about what it should mean to stop cannabis being criminalized.
Our whole world is being controlled by FRAUDS!
Doing NOTHING makes sure things GET WORSE!
REGISTERING AND RUNNING AN EDA RESISTS THAT.
 |
| Forum |
| Contact en | fr |
 |
|
Articles published in this section: |
  |
