Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

[arayder]

I busted Porisky on can. taxes over 10 years ago

See this copy of the three emails I have recently sent to Russell
Porisky.
As yet Mr. Porisky has not replied.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:25:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Austin Rayder"
<austinra...@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Documentation requested

To: paradi...@shaw.ca, por...@shaw.ca
CC: jimmy_fo...@hotmail.com, ban...@hotmail.com,
starw...@hotmail.com, irc-d...@shaw.ca, ge...@mail.samhill.co.uk,
retir...@runbox.com

Mr. Porisky,

I have located a copy of the applicable section of the transcript of
your December 2000 trial:

Judgement (Maltby, C.G., P.C.J.)

I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven their case. The evidence,
the very brief evidence given by the Crown, was that an officer checked
his computer in his office, another officer checked her computer in her
office, in different locations in the lower mainland, and did not find
that there had been income tax returns filed for the years set out in
Counts 1 to 4 by the defendant. He was served with a notice and
according to another check in a computer this was not filed, but I am
not satisfied that -- there was no evidence in front of me that when
thecomputers were checked this was a cross-Canada check. I can assume
that, everyone can assume that, but it is not evidence and I cannot
judicially assume that. It has to be proven. It would have been very
simple to prove. This is not a precedent-setting case or anything else.
It is strictly one on its facts, on the Crown failing to get that one
bit of evidence out. We all know citizens have certain duties. If they
do not like them they can go through other routes, through the
legislature, to get it carried out. This is not a case that is going to
assist anyone. It is strictly on the facts and the fact that there were
about three words that were omitted that could have been added. I am
acquitting the accused on the charges.

-----------------------

The transcript runs 100% counter to the version of the facts you gave
me over the telephone a few days ago.

If you recall I asked you directly if you were acquitted on a
procedural, technical error by the prosecution. If you recall you said
that was not the case and cut the question off opining that I didn't
understand your theories.

Now I understand. You were being less than honest with me. I believe
you owe me an explanation.

I hope you are not repeating such inaccuracies during your seminars!

--------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:16:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Austin Rayder"
<austinra...@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Documentation requested

To: paradi...@shaw.ca, por...@shaw.ca
CC: jimmy_fo...@hotmail.com, ban...@hotmail.com,
starw...@hotmail.com, irc-d...@shaw.ca, ge...@mail.samhill.co.uk

Mr. Porisky,

Thank you for your time on the telephone today.
My understanding of your explanation of your December 2000 acquittal on
tax charges is that the court identified you as a natural person and
the defendant. However, in the afternoon, after the Crown presented
their case, the judge reconvened the court and without you arguing your
side ruled (as you say "argued your case for you") that the charge
and/or its particulars did not comport with the Canadian Bill of
Rights, thus acquitting you.

I understand that documentation of this can be located in the court
transcripts. I will consider obtaining that record.
If you would care to elaborate on the case, correct my understanding or
quote passages of the transcript please feel free to reply.

Austin Rayder

--------------------------

[Burnaby49]

Porisky's acquital in 2000 had absolutely nothing to do with his natural person argument. Not that Porisky will say anything about it. He currently isn't saying anything at all. He made almost no defense at trial, he just sat there with his wife and let it all wash over him without comment.

He's appealed his conviction but mainly on the nonsensical ground that the jury didn't deliberate long enough before convicting him. His other grounds are basicall yjust quibbling about the judge's instructions to the jury.

[arayder]

[Duncan says] We are adults. . .

LOL

[notorial dissent]

I think it is a VERY safe assumption to say that Porisky is NOT the font of knowledge or honesty that he would like to pretend to. So while his prevarications and squirmings about what actually happened might be amusing and instructive as to his mind set they are hardly anything but fact free.

What I am still trying to wrap my head around is the judge's determination that CRA HADN'T PROVEN that Porisky hadn't filed any taxes. What was it he was expecting CRA to do other than to check their records and see that there had been nothing filed. I still find that ruling perplexing unless there was more behind it than was mentioned.

[arayder]

What I am still trying to wrap my head around is the judge's determination that CRA HADN'T PROVEN that Porisky hadn't filed any taxes. What was it he was expecting CRA to do other than to check their records and see that there had been nothing filed. I still find that ruling perplexing unless there was more behind it than was mentioned.

My understanding was that the prosecutors didn't check the records for the last few weeks or days of the tax year. I am guessing they checked the existing records to prep the case and then showed up in court with no answer to the question of whether Porisky paid up at the last minute during the intervening weeks or days.

It was also my impression that the matter was brought up by the judge with no prompting from Porisky.

In the decision the judge was very clear that the ruling didn't endorse Porisky's theories or mean that he wasn't required to pay his taxes.

None of this stopped Porisky from lying through his teeth and saying the judge had specifically endorsed his claim that income taxes violated his rights as a natural man.

Already knowing the answer to the question I called Porisky (he was giving out a number in those days) and ask how he won. He blurted out the lie that the judge had accepted his argument and ruled that income taxes violated his rights. When I followed up with a question about the prosecutorial error that allowed him to beat the rap he launched into a manic recitation of his theory so as to avoid the question. He ended the rant with an insulting supposition that I probably didn't understand what he was talking about.

The conversation was a real insight into how a cult works and what gurus do when they are taken to task.

[coffeekitten]

OK, here's an old post from Pete Daoust, but it hasn't come to my attention at this time, but it showed again on top of the Surety group page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/lasuret ... e/?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/groups/lasuret ... 004729475/

So, he offers 500 reddcoin to his followers who come with a reddcoin address. He gives the example of the famous bitcoin, that worths a lot more today. But, you see, 1 reddcoin =$0.000022. Also, when some members turned against him and denounced his tactics, he told them that they owed him $2000 each. Is it because he gave them Reddcoins, or like with the city of Terrebonne, he decided that because of the damages done to his precious person (a smear campaign, poor him), some compensation is required? Anyway, reddcoin isn't as known as bitcoin and there are a lot more cryptocurrencies in the market and most of them have a low exchange rate. http://coinmarketcap.com/ So, his promises of wealth look totally ridiculous to me.

The idea is that cryptocurrencies aren't tender for law, lol. Not sure you can pay for your everyday transactions with it. And not sure your boss will accept to pay you in cryptocurrencies neither. And, for what I've read, you probably still have to pay your taxes.

[notorial dissent]

Just sounds like another of his unilateral contracts of the if you don't agree with me and my revealed wisdom you owe me $2K, and worth every bit as much as his advice and reddcoin, which is to say, NOTHING.

I'm not sure exactly what he thinks "tender for law" means, but legally it has no meaning, it is just meaningless word salad with words that have meaning in context, but not with each other.

[Burnaby49]

My understanding was that the prosecutors didn't check the records for the last few weeks or days of the tax year. I am guessing they checked the existing records to prep the case and then showed up in court with no answer to the question of whether Porisky paid up at the last minute during the intervening weeks or days.

Not quite. Porisky was a long-term resident of Abbotsford, a Vancouver bedroom community up the Fraser Valley. The CRA checked their records for British Columbia and found he hadn't filed here. The judge said "What about the rest of Canada?" Apparently the CRA was required to show that he hadn't filed in Halifax, 4,000 miles away. Now with everything computerized one check does it all but back then you apparently had to check all CRA offices across Canada individually if you wanted to confirm 100% that he hadn't filed.

[arayder]

My understanding was that the prosecutors didn't check the records for the last few weeks or days of the tax year. I am guessing they checked the existing records to prep the case and then showed up in court with no answer to the question of whether Porisky paid up at the last minute during the intervening weeks or days.

Not quite. Porisky was a long-term resident of Abbotsford, a Vancouver bedroom community up the Fraser Valley. The CRA checked their records for British Columbia and found he hadn't filed here. The judge said "What about the rest of Canada?" Apparently the CRA was required to show that he hadn't filed in Halifax, 4,000 miles away. Now with everything computerized one check does it all but back then you apparently had to check all CRA offices across Canada individually if you wanted to confirm 100% that he hadn't filed.

Thanks for the correction, Burnaby49. It seems I didn't re-read what I posted 11 years ago. . .duh?

What really got me about the whole thing was the way Porisky lied like through his teeth about how he beat the rap.

It made me suspicious of subsequent claims of success by Robert Menard, Keith Thompson and Dean Clifford. It turns out freeman claims of victory were lies based on a judge bowing upon adorning the court, a freeman getting released from jail for time served, getting bail or being granted a continuance. Sometimes the freeman story teller would just say he'd won when he hadn't.

This is somewhat pertinent to this thread because one sees the same behavior by Duncan and Daoust who claim a judge has declared everyone slaves when in fact the judge did nothing of the sort.

[coffeekitten]

Pete Daoust interprets things in a really twisted way. Turning a defeat into a victory. Or declaring people should verify rather than believe, except it's not because Revenu Québec ignore your emails that Daoust is right. I don't know how people can be gullible enough not to see through Daoust bullshit.

[coffeekitten]

Pete Daoust is thinking seriously about running for the next election in Quebec. The name of the future party is still to be determined. I'm pretty sure not a lot of people will take them seriously. Let's see his very ambitious (and crazy) program:



1- Void the public debt of Quebec.

2- Ask to anyone who robbed us to give back the money.

3- Void all the electricity accounts of Quebecers.

4- Lay criminal charges against ALL Public Trustees who have violated the fundamental RIGHTS of all Men / Women with a Legal Entity domiciled in Québec.

5- Get out of prison all men and women who committed no crime.

6- Promote the manufacturing sector to the point that everything that can be manufactured in Quebec is. If you are an Entrepreneur, and want to PRODUCE in Quebec, the State will be behind you to the end.

7- Make importing foreign products unacceptable.

8- Create 100 000 jobs per year by producing everything we need in Quebec.

9- Eliminate roaming.

10- Prevent the Barreau du Québec from transforming a Man / Woman into a PROPERTY.

11- Educating our children to make them competent men / women, instead of making them DOCILE CONTRIBUTORS.
FREE EDUCATION.

12- Give back to journalism to power to inform people.

13- No tolerance for corruption.

14- Eliminate income tax.

15- Establish a TAXATION system on Products / Services in an equitable manner.

16- Prohibit, in the management of public finances, to include in a budget fines given to LEGAL PERSONS.

17- Tell the truth at all times.

Well, I suspect he's a fan of Trump and his protectionist measures (and like him, he doesn't pay his taxes ) But, he's not an overly rich man with a big business like Trump, so I don't think we need to fear he gets even close to being elected.

[notorial dissent]

Daoust is a real piece of work and his party platform even more astounding, rationality and reason don't seem to be his strong points though.

[arayder]

Daoust is a real piece of work and his party platform even more astounding, rationality and reason don't seem to be his strong points though.

Yeah, ole Petey's showing his true stripes. His platform amounts to:

-Magically getting all his buds out of jail.
-Putting public officials who don't buy his legal theories in jail.
-Dictating behavior to private businesses.
-Turning the public schools into TFL brainwashing centers.

Somebody explain how this differs from other forms of totalitarianism?

[notorial dissent]

Since almost all of his planks requires what I would suspect is an alternate reality view of those things that would require definitions and such not found in nature I could see where it could also get a bit tricky, since I suspect his definition of stealing is considerably at odds with the real world view of such. I really am beginning to think it is time for Petey to take up residence in one of those facilities with white padded walls.

[coffeekitten]

Pete Daoust recently said on his Surety group page that one can refuse to sign documents for a birth certificate and that if someone from the State threatens you for not signing, it is illegal, because it is a vitiated consent (vice du consentement). According to him, if you ask this silly question "Madam (or Mister?), could you tell me WHO will be the party holding SAFETY for this new legal entity that the state is preparing to ratify for my little girl?", then the little girl won't have this huge debt of $50 000 coming with this birth certificate (he's referring to the public debt). Same thing for a boy, of course. I'm wondering what can be the life of this poor child, because I imagine he won't have access to free healthcare, or access to public or even private education, but I guess it doesn't matter for freemen or freewomen (I know Duncan followers hate being called freemen, but I don't care). I think it's pretty irresponsible. It's not really better than growing up in a sect.

[arayder]

It seems Daoust has turned into a one trick pony. The trick is one of the oldest in freemandia.

Anytime one encounters an authority figure one asks an unanswerable and loaded question of that authority figure. When the authority figure is stumped by the absurdity of the question the freeman walks away declaring himself in triumph.

It's like the time Dean Clifford tried to enter the U.S. without a passport and as he was being denied entry he asked the border guard if he was a representative of the "real United States". When the guard didn't grasp the obscure freeman theory Dean was referencing Clifford declared himself the winner of the encounter as he turned back into Canada.

The funny part is Dean apparently caused enough trouble at the border that the U.S. border cops called the RCMP and as Deano drove back home in his truck the RCMP stopped him in order to see what sort of loon was on the loose near the border. It turns out Dean didn't have a driver's license, registration for the truck, license plates or insurance. He proceeded to quiz the RCMP on the technicalities of freeman law for several minutes before they towed his truck away.

[notorial dissent]

And they say that Freeman stupid isn't self correcting. They do more damage to themselves than is done to them.

[coffeekitten]

Other silly nonsense from Pete Daoust? Your first name is corresponding to Her Majesty and your last name to an organization. And the two form a person. WOW!!!

[notorial dissent]

I think Pete is just slipping further and further in to la la land. He must be getting very frustrated that no one is taking him seriously.

[Philistine]

I think Pete is just slipping further and further in to la la land. He must be getting very frustrated that no one is taking him seriously.

Yes, I think originally, he was just one of the Duncan Deluded. He's now just making up his own shit as he goes along.
He's clearly not very good at it.