The infection is heading north!

[notorial dissent]

Not that it really matters, but if the Canadian telco is still anything like what we suffer with down here, there is somewhere, under some name or title, a gov't commission that handles the parceling out of prefixes in a general area, and for a gov't they usually will block out one specific prefix to create a private branch exchange to assign to all the gov't offices, and the aforementioned prefix is more often than not generated by some unemotional unattached computer program that really doesn't care what the number is so long as it fits a certain ranking of requirements, and thus you end up with a pbx of 666.

[grixit]

It makes a kind of sense actually. If 666 were left in the common pool, there would be individuals freaking out when it got assigned to them, and businesses objecting to getting it for fear of superstitious people boycotting them. So might as well give it to the government agencies, which people will find reasons to hate anyway.

[The Observer]

Much more sensible to assign the 666 prefix to telemarketers. I am pretty sure they have been consigned to the 8th circle of Hell.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Much more sensible to assign the 666 prefix to telemarketers. I am pretty sure they have been consigned to the 8th circle of Hell.

I concur, but ought it be the fifth or seventh Bolgia?

SMS Möwe

[The Observer]

Why be selfish? Just expose them to both pockets on a rotating shift.

[webhick]

666 is one of the exchanges for Manchester NH

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I found something I think is rather neat while skulking around the 'net last night. I was exploring the "Freemen of British Columbia, Central Interior" Facebook user group (http://www.facebook.com/groups/137869309596644/ if anyone is curious), savouring the stupid, when I spotted a discussion by Freemen-on-the-Land on Porisky.

This is not something I often see. Usually the Freemen and De-Taxers seem to stick to their respective peer groups, so I was very interested to see that the inter-movement evaluations were. In this sense I don't usually have an opportunity to hear the perspective of those on the 'other side of the hill'.

Here's the message thread: http://www.facebook.com/groups/13786930 ... 490157557/

Illustrating his usual degree of insight, Brian "Freakin' Idiot" Alexander suggests arresting the judge who is trying Porisky. Then the big guns appear:

Robert Menard:

We would have to establish and convene a People's Court first.... The judge says this in his judgment:

[58] Mr. Porisky’s theory not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense. It is a failed attempt at word magic and has no validity.

[59] The absurdity of the supposed distinction between a natural person and a non-natural person (and I do not mean to refer to a corporation here) was shown by several things that arose during the course of the trial.

Just who is REGINA? An imaginary fictional entity that exist in his mind the same way as Santa Claus exists to a child. Talk about absurdities!

Dean Clifford:

"This is why we need help from people like Dean Clifford so we don't end up in jail for 6 years."

Talked to Russ for 2 hours last night. He voluntarily took the hard road and is fighting them on their turf and with their own laws. He's also winning, it will go to the Appellate Court, he will win there, and he will set a precedence. He knows the Act better than them, and he is right. The lower court ruled against the Supreme Court of Canada in their decision in this case, they always do because they know not many people will take it to appeals and fight the whole way. That is a LONG road and he will fight it all the way. People in the area should be showing up to show their support. He told the Justice he's all in, Life Liberty and Property....you take one you take them all, I'll fight to the death over this, and he will. He's of a generation that won't be seen again for a VERY long time.

Alexander replies:

Brian Alexander:

nothing wrong with keeping the Sin in my mind, just have to give em proper notice. Your right D. Russ is one of a kind. He is the begining of the movement in Canada in my mind, he is what got me started questioning gov. I too beleive in fighting them using thier own laws as well,[trying it as an opption becasue there is so much evidence to support my case] the lower courts seem to be a default fraud, if you want the truth you have to appeal it to higher courts. I just got the transcript estimate for my trial so I can appeal it....$8000 bucks...HTF am I going to afford that? so I guess my only option is civil court...I appointed the pros as fiduciary, going to order he pay for it.

Aside: from subsequent messages it is obvious that appointing the "pros(ecutor)" as a fiduciary didn't have the desired effect.

So, no great insights from me, I just thought it was very interesting to see the (public) perspectives of the New Generation towards their Noble but Shackled Precursors.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Eva Sydel still isn't giving up. She's a totally obsessive Poriskyite tax evader who has been mentioned in numerous threads making it difficult to decide where to put this update however this thread had the first mention of her. In the latest court episode linked below she tried to seek Mandamus at the Federal Court of Canada to force the Attorney General of Canada or the federal Minister of Justice to try and make the Supreme Court of Canada take her long, long, dead appeal although the Supreme Court has already rejected it a number of times. Not surprisingly the totally corrupt Federal Court refused to aid our valiant fighter in her attempts to expose the Freemason/Jewish conspiracy running the Canadian justice system that destroyed her life. Beginning to look like the courts have had enough of her repeat visits. If Bernard Yankson got nailed as a vexatious litigant I can't see how she can last much longer beating this dead horse to a pulp.

[61] The relief sought by the applicant offends the principles of judicial independence, the hierarchy of our Court structure and the supremacy of the SCC.

[62] I would also note that the applicant cannot assert that she was denied the opportunity to place her affidavit alleging that exceedingly rare circumstances exist to warrant reconsideration before a judge given that her affidavit was considered by the Registrar, who has the same authority as a judge of the SCC in Chambers. Moreover, the exceedingly rare circumstances, i.e., her allegations that Freemasons have infiltrated the justice system and that Freemasons may be a criminal organisation and, as a result, have subverted judicial independence and the rule of law, are the very same allegations set out in her Statement of Claim which was dismissed and for which leave to appeal was denied by a three member panel of the SCC.

[63] The applicant claims that she wants finality and that she will only have finality when her motion is considered by a judge of the SCC. In fact, the applicant has had finality. She has relentlessly pursued all possible legal remedies over several years. Her leave to appeal to the SCC has been denied, as has her motion to reconsider her leave to appeal. These Orders are final and binding. As a result, the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal is final in upholding the dismissal of her cause of action. The applicant must come to terms with that final decision and with the fact that her legal recourse has reached its end.

[64] As noted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Scheuneman, supra at para 12:

[…] No one has a right to consume scarce public resources indefinitely in the endless pursuit of a dispute, no matter how important the issues may seem to the individual concerned. Finality is an indispensable aspect of any system of justice.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/201 ... c1116.html

[notorial dissent]

I think the issue is not so much that she wants "finality" but that she wants what she wants, and she what she wants an answer that she was right and "they" were wrong. The court, SCC, is NEVER EVER going to agree with her and make the mean old nasty old Masons go away and quit persecuting her, so she is never going to get the "finality" she wants. As you say, I think she is well deserving of serious vexlit status, and the sooner the better, and maybe some psychiatric observation for her paranoid delusions of persecution wouldn't be amiss at this juncture, as she is only going to sink deeper in to her delusional morass.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Speaking of Bernie, it looks like Eva has pulled a Yankson and exploded her website: http://www.revenuecanada666.com/

The banner says "This Site Is Closed" and all subordinate webpages are password protected.

I see however that Eva did make a comment on Justice Kane a little before she blew everything up. Using Google search and the cache function I have recovered this post, made October 23, 2013:

Will Federal Court Justice Catherine Kane Blow the Whistle on Supreme Court of Canada Registrar Roger Bilodeau?

Or, Will Justice Kane Be Murdered?
Like Justice Layden Stevenson?

The Freemason corruption in the British Columbia court system and at the Supreme Court of Canada, where the Freemason Registrar Roger Bilodeau (shown in centre photo) is accused of protecting Freemasons by obstruction of justice, moved to the Federal Court of Canada with a hearing on October 21, 2013 before Justice Catherine Kane (shown in photo on left)

British Columbia lawyer Richard Hendery argued that the Supreme Court of Canada Registrar Roger Bilodeau acted without any legal authority when he refused to permit Dr. Sydel to file her application for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of Canada.

Registrar Bilodeau is accused of similar mis-conduct in other cases including the notorious Water War Crimes case where insiders with the Canadian Government arranged the murder of former Canadian Federal Court of Appeal Justice Carolyn Layden Stevenson (shown in photo on right).

Click here to read about murder of Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson

Click here to read about more corruption by Roger Bilodeau

Department of Justice lawyer Kirat Khalsa argued that a "Registrar" was the same as a "Judge" and that "Registrar" has the power to decides cases just like "Judges" and dismiss cases from being heard just like "Judges".

Members of the audience audibly groaned and Justice Kane winced when Ms. Khalsa made the illogical argument.

Intelligent observers are now worried about the physical safety of Justice Catherine Kane. If she breaks the law and protects Freemason Roger Bilodeau the decision will obviously have been "cooked" because, under the law, Roger Bilodeau is only a "registrar" and he is not a "judge" or a "court" and he has no power to make decisions reserved for "judges" or the "court".

If Justice Catherine Kane makes a "cooked" decision then there is a high probability that she will be murdered by those same insiders who murdered former Federal Court of Appeal Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson.

In Canada it not uncommon for insiders with the government to murder judges.

Click here for Dead Judges Don't Lie The Story of 12 Murdered Judges

Luckily the three links embedded in the now deleted text still lead to live webpages:

Dead Judges Don't Lie (http://deadjudges.blogspot.ca/)

This blog is dedicated to the judges connected to the Water War Crimes who were induced to commit crimes on the bench and subsequently died after their crimes were exposed.

It is highly probably several of these judges were murdered.

This is an important issue. These judges were victims of a criminal gang operating inside the government of Canada. The criminal gang induced them to breach their judicial oath and then they were murdered when they became a liability.

This web site should be read by every judge in Canada and every lawyer who is considering becoming a judge so that they are aware of the dangers

Water War Crimes (http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/)

This is the inside, unreported, true story of the most explosive scandal in the political history of Canada.

...

THIS IS A STORY ABOUT CANADA'S MOST PLENTIFUL RESOURCE,
WATER
THE STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF THAT RESOURCE,
WAR
AND THE CORRUPTION BY POLITICIANS, CIVIL SERVANTS, JUDGES, LAWYERS, LEADING CANADIAN LAW FIRMS AND OTHERS WHO SOUGHT TO LOOT THE BENEFIT OF THAT RESOURCE FROM ITS RIGHTFUL OWNERS -
THE PEOPLE OF CANADA.
CRIMES

Registrar Roger Bilodeau (http://rogerbilodeau.blogspot.ca/)

Supreme Court of Canada Registrar, Roger Bilodeau, is breaking the law and cheating Canadians from their lawful rights in order to protect crooked Canadian judges and crooked Canadian lawyers from being exposed as criminals and from being brought to justice. This site is dedicated to warning all Canadians that Roger Bilodeau cannot be trusted to do his job honestly and according to the law.

All three of these pages share much of the style as Eva's old blog page, but it very well may be that there are other collaborators who share her perspective. And 'nutty graphic design' does have some accepted best practice standards. In any case, lots of 'interesting' stuff. The Rog. Bilodeau page may hold Eva's conclusion on the November 4, 2013 judgment of Justice Kane as it has this latest posting:

Justice Catherine Kane and The Consequences of a False Judgment - The Law Of Cause and Effect.

The Curse of The Irish and Justice Catherine Kane?

On November 4, 2013, Justice Catherine Kane of Canada's Federal Court rendered a false judgment in a case involving allegations of improper conduct by Supreme Court of Canada Registrar, Roger Bilodeau.

According to the Brehon Laws of Ireland that continue to apply Irish descended women, like Catherine Kane, a divine power keeps watch over their pronouncements to punish them for unjust judgements :

According to Irish history sources:

"When the brehons deviated from the truth, there appeared blotches upon their cheeks" .... and often death would follow.

In the Editors opinion, Justice Catherine Kane delivered a false judgment in order to protect a group of Freemason criminals operating inside the Canadian court system including Supreme Court of Canada Registrar, Roger Bilodeau.

...

A full explanation of the fraudulent nature of Justice Catherine Kane's decision will be published when available.

In the meantime, readers should keep their eyes on Justice Catherine Kane for the physiological disfigurement or possible sudden death that will necessarily arise from her "deviation from the truth" and her giving a false judgment.

This is the law of cause and effect.

This law cannot be avoided.

It's rather intriguing to look at the shift between the pre-judgment and post-judgment opinion. Did Eva really believe she had a chance in front of the Federal Court? Well, in the Sydel-verse it doesn't really matter, a grim fate is inevitable for members of the judiciary. If they rule for or against Eva? They still end up dead.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Thanks, this opens up a whole new vista of crazy. I thought she was just focusing on her tax issues (the Freemason thing came out of that) but she appears to be expanding into an entire conspiracy lifestyle. Apparently every Canadian judge that dies of a heart attack or falling down the stairs has been executed by her enemies. As she says:

In Canada it not uncommon for insiders with the government to murder judges.

Happens all the time, Harper can't keep the federal bench staffed what with all the assasinations.

Strangely she does not mention an actual unsolved apparently premeditated murder of a Canadian judge. Granted he was retired and only Tax Court but still, you work with the material you have . . . . .

http://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-murders-we ... t-1.247299

[Burnaby49]

Deeply disturbed by the relevation that all of our Justices are being murdered over some sinister plot known only to Eva I decided to do a little digging. Not to Mowe's level of internet excavation but with these guys it doesn't take much. Sydel was going on about the murder of Justice Carolyn Laydon Stevenson of the Federal Court of Appeal. According to official sources she died of undisclosed natural causes in 2012. However those in the know know different. Right off the top I dug up this guy with a dead judges website who seems to have a real grudge against the judiciary, all levels of government, and apparently everybody else over something he calls the Water War Crimes;

http://deadjudges.blogspot.ca/2012_07_01_archive.html

And what are these crimes? Pretty mundane at heart, his concern is about exporting Canadian water to the US;

http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/

Our brave blogger had issues with Justice Stevenson over the handling of a case he tried to get heard at the Federal Court of Appeal in respect to his obsession with water exports. Her offense, as far as I can tell, was;

[5] On February 8, 2011, Layden-Stevenson J.A. ordered the appellants to provide security for costs to the respondents in the amount of $10,000, the amount being payable within six months of the date of her Order. That amount remains unpaid.

This was apparently the usual conspiracy rant type case against everybody in mailing reach of John Carten, the plaintiff. It might have even included me! Hard to tell, the initial list of defendants was;

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, JEAN CHRÉTIEN, EDDIE GOLDENBERG, SERGIO MARCHI, LLOYD AXWORTHY, PIERRE PETTIGREW, JOHN MANLEY, BILL GRAHAM, JIM PETERSON, PAUL MARTIN, DAVID EMERSON, TIM MURPHY, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, MICHAEL HARCOURT, GLEN CLARK, UJJAL DOSANJH, GORDON CAMPBELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA, ALLAN ROCK, ANNE McLELLAN, MARTIN CAUCHON, IRWIN COTLER, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA, COLIN GABLEMAN, GEOFF PLANT, WALLY OPPAL, CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL, JEANNIE THOMAS, NORMAN SABOURIN, ANTONIO LAMER, DECEASED, BEVERLEY McLACHLIN, ALLAN McEACHERN, DECEASED, PATRICK DOHM, DONALD BRENNER, BRYAN WILLIAMS, JEFFERY OLIPHANT, JOHN MORDEN, JOSEPH DAIGLE, THEMIS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LTD., THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA, DAVID VICKERS, ROBERT EDWARDS, DECEASED, JOHN BOUCK, JAMES SHABBITS, HOWARD SKIPP, CRYIL ROSS LANDER, RALPH HUTCHINSON, MICHAEL HALFYARD, HARRY BOYLE, SID CLARK, ALLAN GOULD, ROBERT METZGER, BRIAN KLAVER, JOHN MAJOR, JOHN HORN, BARBARA ROMAINE, ADELE KENT, SAL LOVECCHIO, DONALD WILKINS, ROY VICTOR DEYELL, TIMOTHY LEADEM, WILLIAM PEARCE, LISA SHENDROFF, ANN WILSON, RICHARD MEYERS, GILLIAN WALLACE, MAUREEN MALONEY, BRENDA EDWARDS, STEPHEN OWEN, DON CHIASSON, CRAIG JONES, JAMES MATTISON, McCARTHY TETRAULT LLP, HERMAN VAN OMMEN, STEVE KLINE, LANG MICHENER LLP, THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE

And who knows, maybe I was the John Doe stuck on the end!

However, once filed, Carden had not bothered to show any diligence in pursuing it and a Prothonitary had dismissed it. Carten had appealed this and hence Layden-Stevenson's order for fees to the respondents to cover their costs of defending against a vexatious case.

http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/site/fca ... AAAAAAAAAQ

The Federal Court of Appeal finally disposed of it with:

[8] That, in itself, would be sufficient for us to dismiss the appeal. However, after reviewing the Court file in its entirety, I must say that I am in complete agreement with my colleague Layden-Stevenson J.A. who, in her Reasons for granting five motions by the respondents for orders for security for costs, indicated that the appellants’ appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and that it was frivolous and vexatious.

[9]Thus, I see no basis nor justification for allowing the appellants to continue with this appeal and, therefore, in all of the circumstances, this appeal shall be dismissed with costs.

http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/site/fca ... AAAAAAAAAQ

Now none of this has anything to do with Eva Sydel and her Freemason/Jewish conspiracy. What it seems to show is that the random deaths of a few Canadian court justices are being used by conspiracy fanatics as evidence supporting their own particular obsessions.

[notorial dissent]

Well, of course not, but it's a conspiracy don't you know, and those nasty awful Masons are all to blame. The sun comes up in the east, it's a conspiracy. For some people reason has nothing to do with any of it.

We have a clique or two of those down here, but they seem to have gotten thinner and thinner over the years.

There has to be some super secret conspiracy going on to explain why their life's ambitions are continually being thwarted, it couldn't possibly be because they are they are putzes and keep shooting themselves in the foot rather than actually paying attention to reality. In other words, it's never their fault.

[Burnaby49]

Porisky gets a new trial!

Must be because he's clearly innocent. Or was by exploiting a technicality? Technicality it is. The Court of Appeals for British Columbia quashed the convictions for Russell Porisky and Elaine Gould and ordered a retrial on the basis that;

The record does not demonstrate the certainty required that Mr. Porisky knew the mode of trial from which he was re-electing, that he re-elected to judge alone, or that he clearly understood the import of re-election upon his ability to advance arguments he wished to put before the Court. It is not evident that Mr. Porisky suffered no prejudice in losing the trial by judge and jury. The verdict against him must be quashed. Likewise the verdicts against Ms. Gould must be quashed; her trial cannot be separated from Mr. Porisky’s. Contrary to her submission, one cannot substitute an acquittal in respect to her. The verdicts are quashed and the matters remitted to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a new trial.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/ ... CA0146.htm

Media commentary here:

http://www.theprovince.com/trial+ordere ... story.html

One reason that they may have had at least some success is that they finally decided to retain counsel. In their original trial they handled things themselves;

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... csc67.html

So Russell and Elaine will get to explain their beliefs to a jury. I doubt the outcome will be different but at least they seem to take their continuing freedom seriously enough to finally get lawyered up.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

This is an interesting judgment, and ... well ... an odd one. I can't figure out why the judgment takes the form it does. But first - why the delay? There really isn't much here at all. The decision largely is nothing more than a few recountings of facts, excerpt from transcripts, and ... that took six months? To be fair, I have no idea how backlogged things are at the British Columbia Court of Appeal, but the substance of the judgment analysis is rather simple. Why then the delay?

So the decision itself focuses on one narrow point. On the day of jury selection Russ Porisky and Elaine Gould did not show: para. 18. A warrant was issued and they were arrested. They both complained they were all befuddled because their son had a brain tumour: para. 19. I'll presume true because of other factual comments on this illness: para. 18.

At this point Justice Myers should have invoked Criminal Code, s. 598 (1) and said the accused had lost their jury trial unless they had a valid excuse. That never gets assessed, one way or another. Justice Myers instead directly inquires at their next appearance in court whether Gould and Porisky wanted a jury trial. Arguably Justice Myer's question meant he accepted the brain tumour explanation.Elaine clearly said no. Russ said a lot of things.

In the transcripts quoted by the Court of Appeal there is a passage that leapt out at me and that was not discussed at all by the Court of Appeal majority.

THE COURT: Are you re-electing -- well, I thought you may have got the election and that’s what they’re talking about in terms of -- that I haven’t seen in --

[CROWN COUNSEL]: No.

THE COURT: -- terms of whether they were just calling it a withdrawal of consent as opposed to any election. Are you re-electing --

THE ACCUSED PORISKY: Well --

THE COURT: -- for trial by judge alone, or not? I want a yes or no answer.

THE ACCUSED PORISKY: I know, that will become – that’s why I put in the affidavits to – to get the clarity, Your Honour. As the person who wrote the affidavit – I mean, I know you guys don’t like the words, but I don’t know how better to describe myself, a natural person, a human being, okay? It’s in all the books I’ve read, statutes, and everybody seems to think I’m saying something weird, but that’s what was the intention of the thing, was to say I will be here as that, because I – this – this is the only –

THE COURT: Mr. Porisky –

THE ACCUSED PORISKY: venue I can defend myself.

[Emphasis added.]

Porisky is waffling because he's trying to play his double/split person "song and dance" that was subsequently and effectively criticized at trial (R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCSC 67 at paras. 60-61). I interpret at least some of this ambiguity as Russ is saying he has trouble with the election for trial because who knows who is electing? Him, Flesh and Blood Russ, or Russ Strawman?

This continues:

THE ACCUSED PORISKY: No, I’m not. I’m not re-electing, I withdrew that. I withdrew my Charter challenges because I wanted them heard.

THE COURT: What did you withdraw, I’m sorry?

THE ACCUSED PORISKY: I put my two constitutional questions.

THE COURT: Yeah, I’ve got that. Then you talked about -- you were linking it to the trial by jury in some way.

THE ACCUSED PORISKY: Because last time I was here I filed them to be heard and presented as an individual. Last time I was here, there was stuff going on that -- over attaching Porisky to Gould. And my then Charter challenges were brought within that, whatever happened, and I said, well, that’s not my intention on filing them. I filed them, I drafted them, prepared them.

THE COURT: You’re not making any sense whatsoever.

[Emphasis added.]

Yep, you're right Justice Myers, it makes no sense whatsoever unless you recognize that Russ says Russ is Russ #1 and #2, and he's switching between Flesh and Blood and Strawman without warning or explanation. Who's pleading? Who knows! It could be Russ #1 or #2 - and unless the judge knows the split/double person scheme, everything sounds like gibberish.

I have a problem with this. I have a problem with a factually incorrect pseudolegal smokescreen being used to generate a procedural justice issue. I know what happened on appeal was (eventually) Porisky and Co. hired real defence lawyers who pored over the trial transcript looking for any glitch, any potential twist that could be reframed as impinging on constitutional and legal rights. Avoiding that is an issue in an ordinary trial. When one of the accused is playing in-court multiple personality disorder litigant? It's a glorious opportunity to find some slip-up that unwinds everything. Like here.

Worse, the Court of Appeal acknowledge that up to this point Porisky had been claiming he was outside court authority - and then the Court of Appeal sidesteps the fact that one week before jury selection Russ 'opted out' of the trial process (para. 17):

... Two weeks later, on October 28, 2011, Mr. Porisky filed an affidavit which included a stated intention not to appear in court until certain matters were addressed to his satisfaction, with a caveat he may attend from time to time. Ms. Gould filed a similar affidavit. I will not attempt to summarize the matters raised in the two affidavits. It suffices to say they demonstrate profound confusion of the basis for the charges, their status in the courts including as to their theory of “natural persons”, and the trial process.

[Emphasis added.]

The Court of Appeal majority identifies this as confusion. It's not - it's a very well recognized and documented strategy to evade court operation.

The majority stresses that the exact re-election process provided in Criminal Code, s. 561 was not followed (paras 27-29) and comes to this conclusion:

[36] How does this apply to the circumstances of Mr. Porisky? He was unrepresented by counsel on November 7, 2011. I have not replicated all of the discussion, but it is clear that the judge was talking about re-election as if it were open to Mr. Porisky, that is, as if he were still in the position of facing a trial by judge and jury. It is also clear that Mr. Porisky was first telling the judge he had intended to appear for jury selection but did not because his mind scattered when his son became critically in need of major surgery; that is, even after he filed the affidavits on October 28, 2011, he intended a trial by judge and jury. Mr. Porisky’s answers weave, and appear to respond both to the possibility of re-electing from a judge and jury trial and from a judge alone trial. His comments demonstrate uncertainty whether his election was independent of Ms. Gould, and Ms. Gould further confused the discussion by her interjections in the exchange between the judge and Mr. Porisky. Further, Mr. Porisky’s comments tangle his right to make a constitutional challenge with the questions on re-election put to him by the judge and demonstrate some linkage in his mind between the two subjects. When the judge explained to Mr. Porisky that he had earlier elected trial by jury, he gave his only clear yes or no answer, and did so in response to the question “Are you re-electing or not?”, saying “No.” Despite that answer the judge turned to the subject of Ms. Gould’s interjections, with the comments replicated above.

[37] Although the judge took the entire exchange as an expression of a desire on Mr. Porisky’s part to re-elect to a judge alone trial, I consider the transcript does not evince a clear and unequivocal indication that Mr. Porisky understood the starting position from which the re-election under discussion would proceed, nor the import or lack of import the mode of trial might have to the submissions he wished to make as part of his defence. Nor does it, in my view, even clearly demonstrate that Mr. Porisky ‘re-elected’. As I have noted, at one point he said clearly he did not. It is worth repeating that if, as the judge first explained, Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould had lost the right to be tried by judge and jury under s. 598, there could be no issue of re-election.

With respect to the Court of Appeal, I think this is an inappropriately formal approach to what is, at best, a confused situation, and more accurately (in my opinion) an intentional strategy to frustrate the criminal litigation. And it worked in the sense it mashed up the procedure to the point that Porisky and Gould get a second kick at the can.

(But if they think a jury trial will help them, they're in for a rude awakening. Canadians do not like Freemen, Sovereigns, or Detaxers, not at all.)

I understand that result, but I think this decision takes an overly strict approach to a process that is, at best, noisy. And frankly if it is unclear whether Porisky said he wanted a jury or not, I think that is secondary to the fact he was doing all he could to confuse his answer. I dislike seeing vexatious litigation strategies being reenforced as a successful tactic.

I have other questions about this decision.

Porisky ran a bunch of appeal issues:

[4] Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould raise several grounds of appeal, some of them common. Mr. Porisky’s grounds of appeal may be divided into two groups, those concerning trial fairness and those concerning proof of the offences. In respect to issues concerning trial fairness Mr. Porisky contends:

1. the judge lacked jurisdiction to try the case without a jury;

2. the judge erred by failing to provide him with the assistance he should have received as a self-represented accused;

3. the judge erred in failing to rule on the admissibility of each piece of evidence as it was tendered, instead admitting documents in bulk without proper consideration of their individual admissibility, thereby creating an unfair trial; and

4. the judge erred in receiving testimony summarizing the amount of tax found to be evaded, both by allowing a witness to testify with the assistance of spreadsheets containing summarized information and by allowing that witness to provide opinion evidence when not qualified as an expert witness.

[5] In respect to issues relating to proof of the offences, Mr. Porisky contends:

1. the judge erred in preventing him from testifying as to his belief on the validity of certain tax laws, evidence that was relevant to the mens rea of the offences, and to the defence of mistake of fact;

2. the judge erred in holding that the offence of counselling to commit fraud contrary to s. 464 of the Criminal Code applied to situations in which the counselled individual did not commit a fraud; and

3. the trial judge erred in finding that income tax evasion is equivalent to fraud.

The Court of Appeal did not touch on any of these issues, aside from the first one in set one. Why? In particular, the "proof of the offences" issues appear to be questions of law. They will very likely be relevant to the impending re-trial. Why, then, did the Court of Appeal not also comment on these items and clarify the law as best they could, before tossing it back at the (next) trial judge?

It's not as if these issues were not argued in a context of facts. It's not as if these issues are irrelevant. I just don't get it. There was an opportunity here to narrow the issues at the re-trial, and it's not as if these are points on which a jury (if the accused select a trial by jury) will have any say. Those will be choices for the next trial judge, as questions of law.

Does this have something to do with Porisky and Gould starting their appeal self-represented, then getting lawyers, and therefore that some of these issues were essentially not argued on appeal? If so, why not say that?

This all leaves me rather confused. In conclusion, I think this is an unfortunate result, whether legally correct or not, and send my condolences to Justice Myers who clearly endured a lengthy and problematic trial and sentencing process with these two.

On the brighter side, at least now the Crown has had an opportunity to hone its evidence for aggravating factors when the next sentencing occurs. There were some glitches last time.

What a waste of taxpayer funds and state and court resources...

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

I agree with Mowe's excellent analysis. The Court of Appeal seemed to think that Porisky's (my name for combined appellants) deliberate strategy of doubletalk responses to all questions was actually a simple-minded lack of understanding as to what was happening. As I read it Porisky understood the issue and knowingly chose to proceed with a judge rather than a jury. The Court of Appeals put too much weight on the fact that they were unrepresented even though that clearly was, from Porisky's viewpoint necessary, because no lawyer would argue the case the way Porisky wanted it presented. While it is not spelled out I think that this is the reason for this cryptic comment in the original trial decision;

[7] The charges were laid in December 2009 after a search of the accuseds’ residence on December 3, 2008. Up until June 2, 2011 Mr. Porisky was represented sequentially by two counsel, with a short gap between them. Ms. Gould was represented by counsel up until October 12, 2011. Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould represented themselves at the trial.

I also wondered why the court of appeal stopped its analysis after their review of only the first of numerous issues. The whole thing seems rushed.