A Porisky/Paradigm Treasure Trove of Documents!

Post by **Burnaby49** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:46 am

The Western Cabal has, through devious underhanded skullduggery, too foul (or fowl as Charles Norman Holmes would say) to reveal to decent people like my readers, acquired a treasure trove of Porisky/Paradigm documents including the entire Paradigm Education Group training manual. The self-same manual that Paradigm provided to Porisky acolytes to guide them on their path to criminal convictions and jail sentences for tax evasion! I've got these posted on Mediafire for your viewing pleasure. I've just scratched the surface of reading them myself. I'll discuss two documents in this posting but links to all of them are included below. First up to bat is this;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/4968k522c ... cision.pdf

A bit of background is necessary. Eva Sydel, dentist and Poriskyite, was the first of Russell Porisky's crew to end up in court on tax evasion charges and to say she lost badly would be like saying Custer had a bit of a setback at the Little Big Horn. She actually forced the court to impose a jail sentence on her and, after she destroyed her life and lost her dental practice, found a new career as an obsessed serial litigant. She's discussed here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7827

Her conviction set the stage for all the Porisky/Paradigm trials to follow, endangering Porisky's gravy train so it behooved (never used that word before!) him to show his followers why the decision was wrong and his theories were still correct. In 2006 he coughed up a 56 page detailed analysis of why the entire Sydel decision was just a judicial mockery. Given the number of Poriskyite followers who have been convicted since this magnificent piece of legal analysis was penned the only rational explanation is corruption in the courts.

While I won't go into detail (read it yourself if you are interested) his overriding point seems to be that Parliament has, for more than eighty years, failed to use clear and unequivocal words to directly include "natural person" in the definition of "person" in the Income Tax Act. This clearly means, to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a turnip, that natural persons were deliberately left out of the definition because Parliament had decided that natural persons are not taxable.

Seems pretty conclusive to me. Of course a devil's advocate might bring up the alternative view that it was not included because Porisky fabricated the whole natural person scam, along with inventing an entirely imaginary new category of "person", long after the definition of person was included in the act. Also it could be concluded, as the courts have had no problem doing, that the definition of person is all-encompassing so there is no such thing as a natural person to include or exclude for tax purposes. But I suppose that's just me nit-picking.

Porisky also went into great detail to show how the lazy crown counsel just assumed, for purposes of arguing a criminal case, that the word "includes" is a term of expansion that adds to a definition instead the actual common sense understanding of the word which clearly means only those things specifically mentioned after the word "includes" in the definition.

I'll give my own example to show how absurd the crown's position was. Let's say that your granny's recipe for chocolate chip cookies says to include baking powder. The crown's ludicrous understanding of the meaning of "includes" would open the door for the recipe to have other ingredients like chocolate chips, flour, sugar, raw garlic, whatever, in it. This is so imprecise as to be meaningless, who can make sense out of it? In Porisky's legally incisive definition of "includes" granny's chocolate chip cookies recipe would contain nothing but baking powder. Now isn't that far more logical?

Porisky concluded with the sobering thought that if Sydel's guilty conviction was allowed to stand the CRA was going to go on to the next phase of their program; charging all our children with criminal tax evasion for not paying taxes on their allowances. That clearly follows.

The other document to be reviewed is one I searched out because it answered a puzzling question I've already mentioned on Quatloos. For all their talk about the correctness of Porisky's Position and how they were legally entitled to not pay taxes few of the Poriskyites bothered to test this theory in tax court. Instead they went the straight tax evasion option of not declaring their income and doing their best to hide it. This, rather than their claimed beliefs, is what triggered the tax evasion charges. Porisky himself went this route by not declaring the income from scamming his suckers.

However this was only possible if they were self-employed since employees have their taxes deducted at source before they can get their hands on it. These funds are remitted directly to the Canada Revenue Agency. In addition Canadian employers are required to submit T4 slips to the CRA for each employee on an annual basis. These documents give a full disclosure of each employee's earnings for the year and all source deductions remitted to the government. The CRA runs an annual computer matching program comparing filed T4 slips with employee's income tax returns and they go after any undeclared income.

As a result employees have no way of avoiding paying tax and they can't hide their income. So how could Porisky help these poor people, ratted out to the cruel tax department by their own employers? I couldn't figure out how it could be done but that was just because I'm a man of limited vision. Porisky had the answer and it is all laid out in Chapter 5 of the training Manual;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/t1hzvd3r2 ... eewill.pdf

First Porisky sets up the theoretical basis for an employee to justify to himself cheating on his taxes and then gives the . . . cough . . . cough . . . "practical" way to achieve it.

Theoretical

First you separate your two individuals. The real you, the natural man, has to sever yourself from that total loser, the taxpayer, to become tax free. It's elegantly simple, you become an independent contractor. As Russell says;

Remember that you have a right to contract with anyone for anything. Contracting is a fundamental right of all human beings, and is old as the first 2 people that could communicate. We have a right to the freedom of contract and privacy of contract and these rights are not only inherent in our society but are recognized and protected by law through legislation.

The "contract for hire" removes the servant from working for the benefit of the taxpayer and places the natural person in an agent position for the benefit of the natural person, thus the compensation to the natural person falls outside the parameters of the income tax act.

One of the reason that this is possible is because our inalienable Rights and Freedoms, the right to contract is a fundamental right and is recognized and protected in several Canadian and International documents. The Canadian Bill of Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and others.

Isn't that great? The theoretical answer of becoming an independent contractor to sever your two persons is also exactly what the nascent tax cheat needs in order to attain his dream. Separating your taxpayer from your natural person removes your obligation to pay tax and the right to "privacy of contract" justifies hiding your income from the nasty CRA. All of it sanctioned, nay demanded, by the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Almost makes tax cheating a civic duty and a moral obligation.

But how to achieve this as an employee? Porisky has the answer!

Practical

Porisky has a whole chapter on how to attain the nirvana of contractorship. Harass your employer into firing you and hiring you back as a contractor! Elegant, simple, it was in front of me the whole time but I was just too dense to see it. Just better be sure your employer doesn't stop at the end of step one of that two part plan!

If you can persuade your employer to play ball you get paid your gross salary, sorry, contractually agreed remuneration, and no pesky T4 slip to give the game away to the government that you are receiving money for services. Porisky provides guidance how to do this in a series of sample letters, purportedly an actual case history of someone that employed this method. The guy failed but that's beside the point. Pages 8 to 10 give detail on a sample contract to get your employer to sign.

You start the ball rolling with the series of letters beginning on page 39. These are apparently actual letters between a Poriskyite school bus driver and his employer, a Vancouver area school district. The first few are missing so an explanatory note brings us up to speed;

The initial correspondence is missing but it basically said, they would refuse to exchange his contract of service for a contract for hire because the union was the only one who could negotiate contracts this letter was to the Director of Instructions for a school district.

So our tax evader hopeful replied with this;

Thank you for your response to my request to change my type of contract of employment. The intent of my request is to change my current employment status from one of numerous statute created employees under a contract of service for remuneration to a more limiting employee as defined by the British Columbia Employment Standards Act in the definition section "employee" sub-section (b), allowing me to exercise my right to be employed under contract for hire for compensation.

In response to your concerns regarding Article 4.1 of the Collective Agreement between the School District and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 411, this Contract for Hire will act in conjunction with the collective agreement, as I would remain a union member, becoming a dependant contractor as defined by the British Columbia Labour Relation Code.

A "dependant contractor" is a new term he apparently made up as the school district's negative response implies;

Your initial proposal to the School District was to change your employment status from 'employee' to 'independent contractor' The District's response of September 17, 2001 cited concerns around Articles 4 1 and 5 of the Collective Agreement These clauses set out union membership as a condition of continuing employment and prohibits an employee from representing the union in a meeting with the employer without union authorization. In response, you modified your proposed contractor status from 'independent' to 'dependent', indicating an intention to retain union membership

In discussing the term 'dependent contractor' with Revenue Canada, I was advised that an individual who goes to his employer's premises on a daily basis and utilizes the employer's equipment and/or supplies to produce a good and/or service for use and/or sale by that employer is not a contractor It was also stated that Revenue Canada does not distinguish between a "natural" and "artificial" person, in that anyone making a certain amount of money is required by law to file a tax return and pay taxes In order for an individual to qualify for any tax advantages, it must first be established that they are in fact a contractor

In summary, I do not believe that your proposal would satisfy the prerequisites of independent or dependent contractor For this reason, the School District is not prepared to support your request for a change in employment status.

Time to show them that our Poriskyite wasn't an ignorant hick who didn't know his rights. So he took off the gloves and showed them who they were really dealing with (an idiot);

In regards to you third paragraph, your conversation with Revenue Canada (C C.R A.) is an ideal example of misinterpretation. When an agent of C C.R A uses the word individual, they are effectively saying, " an artificial entity, (i e. Officer), other than an incorporated entity." With out this understanding most people interpret this word as having a meaning to include a human being working in his own capacity In regards to their comment of not distinguishing between natural and artificial persons, they are correct in saying that, when the natural person is working as the legal representative of an officer under a contract of service for the benefit of the officer in a master/servant relationship there is no distinction However with out that type of contractual arrangement the income tax act does not and can not apply to a natural person working in his/her capacity, under a contract for hire, creating a principal and agent relationship, as that would, if done through force, violate not only provincial and federal statutes (B.0 Human Rights Code and Canadian Bill of Rights 1960, respectively) but also international covenants such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

Lastly, in regards to your fourth paragraph, it is my belief that the definition of "Dependant Contract" better describes the relationship I seek to establish, for the exercise and protection of my human rights, as a dependant contract can be compensated for work and treated as if he/her were an employee. However, if the definition of "employee", while unattached to the term dependant contractor, in the Labour Relation Code can include a natural person, working in his/her own capacity, under a contract for hire for compensation, then I have no issue with the classification of my status with that Code. . . . .

I further believe that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 clearly states that a contract of service cannot be forced upon a human as a condition of employment

Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 23: (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to the protection against unemployment.

I hope the pervious points helps you better understand the true nature and intent of my request. With my understanding of what the law states, it is not only my human right to make this request but also your duty, according to law, to fulfill this request without delay. Due to the apparent uniqueness of this request for the Chilliwack School District I feel it only reasonable to give you until January 31, 2002 to comply with this request, so to provide you with sufficient time to seek counsel in regards to human rights. I am also willing to meet with you again to provide you with more in-depth information for the support of my request, if you feel this will be helpful.

Any delay beyond the aforementioned date will be seen as an intentional violation of my human rights, leaving me no other option but to seek protection from any and all levels of governments. Non-compliance to my request will also be seen an admission of guilt for the deliberate intent to violation of my human rights, by all parties involved, natural and/or artificial, subjecting the parties, jointly and severally, to the appropriate civil and/or criminal charges

In closing I would like to state, to err is human and I am more than willing to cancel my request and provide you with a letter of apology for any inconvenience this request has inflicted upon you, if you can provide for me any lawfully and legally authorized statute which clearly states that the above mentioned statutes and covenants are of no force or effect, as well as valid documentation giving anyone the supreme authority to violate the human rights of another
human.

Yours truly

Note that is by no means the full letter. Our hero cites all kinds of irrelevant statutory clauses that he probably didn't understand himself. But the pickle he was in wasn't entirely his fault. He pointed out to the school board that they tricked him when they first hired him;

I am a human being, created by God my creator, and known in law as a natural person. I was hired, with the intent of working in my own capacity for my own benefit, only to find out later I had unknowingly entered into a contract of service, due to lack of full disclosure, forcing me to work for the benefit of an entity known as an officer in the Canada Pension Plan Act and several other provincial and federal statutes.

The term and conditions of this contract of service were never fully disclosed to me by an agent of the Chilliwack School Board who was given authority to act as the Human Resource Officer, denying the option of choosing this type of contract voluntarily.

However the school board's unfeeling ignorant response virtually demanded that he go nuclear;

I am in receipt of your further correspondence dated December 17, 2001 and appreciate the fact that you continue to be unhappy with the School District's decision not to agree to a change in your employment status

It is the District's position that we have in no way violated your human rights or discriminated against you under any of the proscribed grounds You have been, and will continue to be, treated in the same manner as other regular and school term employees with the School District We are required by law to make deductions from your pay for benefits such as C P P and will continue to meet our statutory obligations in this regard

I believe that the School District has been clear and unambiguous in terms of its response to date and has been both consistent and appropriate in its decision not to change your employment status.

So he filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Commission!

To: B.C Human Rights Commission
Dear Sir or Madam.

This is to advise you that I feel my human rights are being violated After trying to deal with the matter in a responsible manner on my own, 1 have had no success even though I feel that I have provided sufficient documentation to support my position

Please find enclosed all written correspondences with my employer that has transpired to date I hope they will give you a general over view of my position as well as the position taken by the employer.

The following is provided for a more in-depth understanding of my position to support my claim for assistance to resolve this matter

With recent studies I have become aware of the fact that I have been working under an implied contract of service for the benefit of an artificial person known as an officer, thereby creating a master/servant relationship It is this relationship that is in conflict with several of my beliefs As such I have attempted to rectify this by requesting an exchange of the contract of service for a written or implied contract for hire, allowing me to work in my capacity as natural person for my own benefit, thus changing the relationship to one of principal/agent.

It is their refusal to continue my employment, unless I submit to the master/servant relationship as implied through their refusal to comply with my request, making the contract for service a mandatory term or condition of employment. I feel this is a contravention of my human rights in relation to Section 13. (1)

It was and still is being portrayed as a mandatory term of employment, denying me the right to make a free will decision thereby creating an involuntary form of servitude which is in contravention of Article four of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

As I am an employee of a public service and the school district is under the authority of the Public Sector Employers Act, the Act itself provides for the use of either type of contract of employment. This leads me to believe that their refusal to comply with my request is an attempt to hold me in servitude which again contravenes Article four of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

It is because of my religious beliefs that I seek your assistance as slavery and mandatory servitude violates my rights, as well as my beliefs, forcing me to live with internal conflict The following verses may help you understand my position

Matthew 6
24 "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other

Galatians 5
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

I also feel that, because of my political beliefs I need to make a change of this term or condition of employment If you need my position on this point expanded to aid in your determination, I will be more than willing to provide you with the necessary documents that will establish how their actions have and continue to violate my rights

Attached are some excerpts from documents that may be helpful, giving support for the validity of my complaint. If additional information is required to help you understand my position please feel free to ask, as what has been provided here is but a portion of the available documentation I rely upon to support my complaint.

our indentured slave was distressed by the Commission's response (not supplied) so he decided to send a condescending letter advising the recipient he was bypassing him and going to the top, where he would be welcomed with open arms.

Dear B. Bonn

I have received your letter and have read your opinion with great interest I feel that you have overlooked the essence of what I was attempting to communicate to you, for this I apologize. You seem to have marginalized the terms master/servant relationship by using them in some abstract context and have failed to view the situation as the human rights violation it is. I may not
agree with your opinion but I understand your reasoning, as you yourself probably do not even understand the true structure of your own employment situation

Because I feel your opinion is based on a superficial understanding of the true nature of my complaint, I will be submitting a response to your office, for the Commissioner to review, on or before July 19, 2002 I feel this extension is reasonable considering you have taken over 2 months to provide me with an opinion. This should afford me the required time I need to provide the Commissioner with sufficient additional documentation so he will be able to clearly comprehend the true nature of my complaint I am sure my response will leave him with the conclusion that my true human rights have been violated and have fallen well within his jurisdiction, requiring him to assist me.

Unfortunately all these letters had taken so long that he had by now retired from the position he'd been fighting to get fired from. So he threatened the B. C. Human Rights Commission with a lawsuit to recompense him for the money he'd lost (you know, the taxes he couldn't steal from the CRA). Talk about mission creep!

Dear Commissioner:

I have received the letter of opinion from B Bonn denying my human rights complaint I would like to take this opportunity to provide additional information, that when viewed as a whole, with my prior submissions and in the context of the supremacy of human rights, will clearly support my complaint and justify the need for an appropriate remedy.

As I have recently retired from my position, the violation has ceased, however due to the length of time that has elapsed to deal with this complaint, both with your department and the School District, I have suffered both financial and personal damages and now seek remedy for the time frame involved

I think any one will agree that mandatory involuntary servitude is a violation of human rights I hope that as you review all the information provided in my initial complaint and consider the true essence of what I have been denied, you will recognize that my rights have clearly been violated and will assist me in recover the loses that have suffered.

If this situation is outside of your normal scope of experience and you would like addition documentation, than that already submitted, to assist you in understanding the whole of the violation, please feel free to contact me as I have an overwhelming amount of information that will support my complaint.

The information available, which I feel you should already have knowledge of, is easily available upon request if you find yourself questioning the validity of my complaint. A clear example is, that up until now your department and the School Board, has relied on the unsupported rhetoric from C.C.R.A., stating an individual must comply with their regulations. What they neglect to make known, whether with innocent ignorance or a deliberate intent, both of which are no excuse for violating human rights, and for which I can prove beyond dispute, is that the word individual does not and cannot include a human being, who is known in law as a natural person and protected by numerous provincial and federal statutes including but not limited to the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960.

However the Porisky material admits that if you work for a large corporation just sending letters is unlikely to get you a positive outcome. However even here there is potential to get what you want. Harass, sue, and, as a final resort, threaten to quit.

1 Educate oneself and look for alternative employment

2 Start a methodical education process requesting a shift to a contract for hire

a Start with the immediate manager
This can be done verbally but if nothing results provide the request in writing. This will become the start of the paper trail to prove your point of intent and may come in handy if the situation proceeds to the Human Rights Commission

b. Contact the next levels of authority, but this time, keep all communications in writing.
i. Every letter becomes one more seed planted and you never know where in the line of authority another, aware yet frustrated, individual may be.

c After your request has made it all the way up the corporate ladder, a final letter to the president of the company may be in order. This step needs to be done in a sincere and professional manner, the reason being is that, to them the employee is probably just a number and a confrontational approach may result in dismissal for some apparent unrelated issue.

3. A third and more radical approach may be considered if the employee feels he is an intricate part of the operation and has skills that are hard to replace, or he is in the position of not being reliant on the job for survival

Make a written demand for a shift to a contract for hire, offering the availability of education material to support his position. Add to the demand that his intent is to terminate his relationship, if his demand is not taken with respect or is outright refused.

After all, if everybody does it, Mr. Big Corporation will have no choice but to capitulate;

The big picture when it comes to large corporations is, as time passes and awareness increases the corporation itself will be forced to accept new ideas, as it will become harder to fill employment positions because of the fewer available ignorant potential employees

One thing of interest that I think would be hard to swing in the actual working world is the sample letter on pages 36 and 37. It is a hostile belligerent letter to the CRA to be sent by your employer on your behalf telling the CRA to get lost, it is none of the CRA's business how your employer structures its employee/contractual arrangements with the people who work for it. The letter informs the CRA that the employer refuses to allow its workers to have their human rights violated by being treated as slaves so it will not consider them as employees any more so bugger off! Here is some of the sample text;

As mentioned in my letter of April 25, 2002, I am not prepared to act in any way that may be viewed as a violation their human rights Until I can be assured, in writing, that I will be held harmless and your requests and my subsequent actions will not violate their human rights, I feel I need to act in a prudent manner, as an excuse of "just following orders" has been established by the courts as, no justification for violating human rights Because of the vagueness of your prior response to my requests I have a feeling that either you are unfamiliar with the supremacy of human rights or you are attempting to induce me into aiding you in a crime against humanity by demanding I participate in the involuntary enslavement of these human beings through the reclassification of them into officers, thereby giving, not only you but, myself the ability to steal their property as well as control them

I hereby give notice that I refuse to participate in any such activity and deem this letter to be my official demand for information for the support your position that these people have either waived their unalienable rights or have no unalienable rights, specifically, their right to work with just and favorable conditions, for their own benefit, as supported and protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 and declared in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Section 23

If we proceed with our meeting as scheduled and you attempt to include these natural people in your classification of an officer, as justification to force me to steal their property, without providing me, in writing, a full response to my demand to support your actions, I will have no choice but to see your actions as a deliberate and intentional attempt to violate their human rights and a willful desire to commit a crime against humanity by using your statutory position to demand that they must participate in a mandatory enslavement program and will refuse to provide you any assistance, so I may protect myself from harm

Please read this letter with the same intent it was written, with sincerity and free of malice I have a fear of being placed in a position that may cause me severe harm I believe that my demands are reasonable and deserve an honest answer, considering the severity of human rights violations I also believe my demands not only fall within your mandate to be answered but also fall within the rights, and in fact the duties, to be asked by any type of person in this country If any of my understandings or beliefs are inaccurate, I welcome your verifiable corrections as this situation is causing me great stress and anxiety which is perpetuated by of your agency's failure, to date, to provide me with the clear and unequivocal documentation needed to give me the reassurance and comfort to comply without fear.

Fmotlgroupie · Post by **Fmotlgroupie** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:54 am

A treasure trove indeed! I was going to post a reply once I'd gone through it all, but that may take a very long time indeed! If there are any grad students lurking on Quatloos, this isyour big primary-source chance!

Thanks very much Burnaby for getting this, and getting it online for all of us!

Post by **Burnaby49** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:46 pm

And a lot more to come. I attended a Porisky promoter court hearing yesterday with a Preliminary Inquiry set for him in January. Richard Stanchfield (promoter) has a Preliminary Inquiry in February and Keith Larson & May Dang-Larson (promoter and wife) have a full trial in March. Since these are all local I'll have access to any documents that seem of interest.

Yesterday's knucklehead seemed to think he could stop proceedings just by refusing to give his consent to being tried. He told the judge that the court had no jurisdiction over him and he actually asked the judge for legal advice on how he could prove, to the judge, that the judge wasn't really a valid judge. For some reason the Court declined to aid him in this. He seems to think that since he is self-represented the Crown and Court have the responibility of giving him legal advice; except he calls it "guidance".

Just running off to New Westminister court to see what is going on with this guy;

http://issociety.org/crown-applies-to-h ... ri-17-oct/

Fmotlgroupie · Post by **Fmotlgroupie** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:14 pm

Okay, now that ISS link is the best thing I've seen in ages. A very specif new brand of crazy (winding up in our classic Sovrun "laws don't apply to me" core belief), lots of fairly clear primary documents, and a cast of characters that includes a retired RCMP officer and Elvis impersonator! What more could we hope for? (Okay, you saw the show live in court, you know exactly what we can hope for!)

Post by **Burnaby49** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:22 pm

Fmotlgroupie wrote:Okay, now that ISS link is the best thing I've seen in ages. A very specif new brand of crazy (winding up in our classic Sovrun "laws don't apply to me" core belief), lots of fairly clear primary documents, and a cast of characters that includes a retired RCMP officer and Elvis impersonator! What more could we hope for? (Okay, you saw the show live in court, you know exactly what we can hope for!)

And you're going to get it! Frank makes the cut and I'll hopefully get it done tonight. I'd expected it to be over quickly (court opened 9:45, Frank wanted 45 minutes) but I ended up spending the whole day in court. It was in no way a waste of time. Another amazing adventure in the land of Sovereign litigation.

Post by **notorial dissent** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 1:02 am

Who'd a thunk it, a whole new realm of comedy material.

Quatloos!

A Porisky/Paradigm Treasure Trove of Documents!

A Porisky/Paradigm Treasure Trove of Documents!

Re: A Porisky/Paradigm Treasure Trove of Documents!

Re: A Porisky/Paradigm Treasure Trove of Documents!

Re: A Porisky/Paradigm Treasure Trove of Documents!

Re: A Porisky/Paradigm Treasure Trove of Documents!

Re: A Porisky/Paradigm Treasure Trove of Documents!