Keith David Lawson - Poriskyite Tax Evader

[Burnaby49]

Sorry, not paying attention to my own postings. I was distracted by the proceedings being in an entirely different court system, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeals not being criminal courts, and didn't pay attention to the name of the appellant. Perhaps a moderator could move this over to "Another Canadian Sovereign Gets His Day in Court" or just delete this topic and I'll add this item to the other one myself.

[LPC]

The appellant moved to amend his notice of application. Prothonotary Lafrenière (the prothonotary) dismissed the motion. The appellant appealed the prothonotary's decision to the Federal Court.

You have prothonotaries in Canada? How charming. I thought that the office of prothonotary was unique to Pennsylvania.

And it's something of a shibboleth in Pennsylvania, because the lawyers from out of state don't pronounce it properly, and put the emphasis on the wrong syllables. (And maybe you don't pronounce it properly in Canada either. In Pennsylvania, it's pro-THON-o-TAR-ee, not PRO-tho-NO-tary.)

[4] The prothonotary correctly stated the applicable law regarding the amendment of pleadings and concluded:

• the proposed amendments directed toward challenging the appellant's tax liabilities relate to matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada;

• the decisions taken by CRA to apply for the issuance of a search warrant were administrative and procedural steps and as such not reviewable; and

• the validity of the search warrant could be attacked only in the courts of British Columbia.

I have to admit that the above conclusions are borderline gibberish to me, because the first and third conclusions are jurisdictional grounds that are not known to me, and the second conclusion is based on a standard that is completely unknown to me.

If the goal was to amuse by providing evidence of clueless Canadian tax nuts, then there's a failure, because I would be as clueless as the Canadian tax nuts.

[Burnaby49]

As I understand it prothonotaries are used, at least in Federal Court, to screen out applications (don't know if that is the correct wording) that have no legal basis, are outside the jurisdiction of the court, or other "housekeeping" issues to save the court the trouble of reviewing hopeless causes.

"the proposed amendments directed toward challenging the appellant's tax liabilities relate to matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada"

Only the Tax Court of Canada can hear appeals from tax assessments. The Federal Court of Appeals is responsible for hearing appeals from the decisions of the Tax Court. Since the Federal Court does not hear criminal cases criminal tax evasion prosecutions are the responsibility of the provincial courts. Appeals from these also go to the provincial court system. Apparently the above conclusion was based on a collateral attack of the assessment giving rise to possible criminal charges. This is not a Federal Court responsibility.

the decisions taken by CRA to apply for the issuance of a search warrant were administrative and procedural steps and as such not reviewable; and

• the validity of the search warrant could be attacked only in the courts of British Columbia.

I assume this means that the reasons considered in the CRA's administrative processes giving rise to the request for a warrant could not be appealed by Mr. Lawson. He could appeal the validity of the warrant (I assume based on the sufficiency of the evidence against him) or any errors in law but, since the warrant was authorized by the British Columbia Provincial Court, it was the provincial court system rather than the Federal Court of Canada which had jurisdiction over any such appeal. Since the Federal Court of Canada had no jurisdiction over Mr. Lawson's appeal the prothonotary rejected it.

Somewhat over my head too, I was an accountant before I retired. However I did testify as an expert at Tax Court and Federal Court on numerous occasions and, as a post-retirement occupation I review all tax cases going through both courts so I have some knowledge of their procedures.

[Burnaby49]

In the past, from time to time, some of our tax protesters have kept the prothonotary busy. For a while they got the bright idea of reviewing the progress of tax bills in parliament prior to enactment. They acquired an encyclopaedic knowledge of parliament's internal rules and procedures and if they found some trivial rule ignored or applied in error, say Black Rod not following some arcane procedure during senate readings, they would run to the Federal Court complaining that the tax law they had been reassessed under was invalid because of parliamentary errors implementing it. There was a bunch of these a few years back all stopped by the prothonotary on the basis that parliamentary rules were not laws. They were administrative procedures established by parliament itself and if parliament chose to ignore its own rules that was its prerogative.

[Burnaby49]

From Wikipedia;

Canada
In the Federal Court (Canada), the Prothonotary is not a clerk, but instead is a judicial officer appointed under the Federal Courts Act and exercises many of the powers and functions of a Federal Court Judge. The Prothonotary's authority includes mediation, case management, practice motions (including those that may result in a final disposition of the case, regardless of the amount in issue), as well as trials of actions in which up to $50,000 is claimed (see Rules 50, 382, and 383 to 387 of the Federal Courts Rules). The current members of the Court are found at Prothonotaries.

Chief Court Clerk
The prothonotary is the chief court clerk in certain courts of law in certain Anglo-American jurisdictions, including the American states of Pennsylvania and Delaware, the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and the Supreme Courts of the Australian states of New South Wales and Victoria.

In Australia the prothonotary is the official in charge of processing a certification of readiness from the two parties involved in a tort.

Truman
U.S. President Harry S Truman was introduced to a prothonotary during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh in 1948. It is widely rumored that Truman's first reaction upon hearing the term "prothonotary" was to say "What the hell is a prothonotary?" Truman is also attributed with saying that "prothonotary" was the most impressive-sounding political title in the U.S.

[wserra]

Perhaps a moderator could move this over to "Another Canadian Sovereign Gets His Day in Court"

Done. I also edited the title of the thread to include the name of the doofus in question. Doing that helps to avoid the creation of multiple threads on the same doofus.

[Gregg]

Perhaps a moderator could move this over to "Another Canadian Sovereign Gets His Day in Court"

Done. I also edited the title of the thread to include the name of the doofus in question. Doing that helps to avoid the creation of multiple threads on the same doofus.

and so was created our own library standard, the Quatloos Doofus Decimal System

[ArthurWankspittle]

[11] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Don't know how it goes in US courts as far as this detail, but in English, and presumably Canadian, courts this usually means the loser picks up the tab for both sides. It can be taken as a hint that you had/have no chance with your case so this is a hint not to bother taking it further. The judge usually AFAIK decides the figure so he can, again AFAIK, pick a nominal amount or ask everyone for detailed bills and land the loser with the lot. I don't know what a couple of state lawyers cost in Canada but would suspect he's going to get a bill for four figures.

[Burnaby49]

[11] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Don't know how it goes in US courts as far as this detail, but in English, and presumably Canadian, courts this usually means the loser picks up the tab for both sides. It can be taken as a hint that you had/have no chance with your case so this is a hint not to bother taking it further. The judge usually AFAIK decides the figure so he can, again AFAIK, pick a nominal amount or ask everyone for detailed bills and land the loser with the lot. I don't know what a couple of state lawyers cost in Canada but would suspect he's going to get a bill for four figures.

Costs awards are standard in Canadian courts, not as a hint by the judge about the merits of continuing but the normal outcome of losing. The losing side generally pays for both sides although it is not quite as simple as it sounds. The loser pays all of his own costs but the amount he pays the winner is based on a court tariff rate schedule which is generally significantly less than the winner's actual overall costs. These are called "party and party" costs. However the judge does have discretion to award full actual costs when he feels that the loser is guilty of egregious conduct such as deliberately delaying proceedings, withholding evidence, or any other actions causing the winner excessive expenses. This is called "solicitor and client" costs.

There are two procedures in the Tax Court of Canada (the court I dealt with), general and informal. Costs are awarded in general procedure but not in informal. The informal procedure has greatly relaxed rules and is only for the small stuff, tax at issue cannot exceed $12,000. Below is an case I pulled at random from the Tax Court website to illustrate how the court awards costs in the absence of agreement between the parties.


IVAN DENISOV, Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.

COURT/JUDGE/DATE:

Tax Court of Canada, Barbara Tanasychuk, T.O., March 1, 2012. (Docket: 2008-1402(IT)G)

REASONS FOR TAXATION

Barbara Tanasychuk, T.O., T.C.C.:—

[1] This taxation came on for hearing on Tuesday, February 21, 2012, by way of telephone conference call. The taxation of costs proceeded thirty minutes after the appointed time, without the participation of the Appellant. Mr. Benoit Mandeville represented the Respondent.

[2] The Bill of Costs followed the Judgment of the Honourable Justice Angers dated August 16, 2010, wherein appeals made under the Income Tax Act for the 2002 and 2003 taxation years were dismissed with costs.

[3] The $9,700.00 claimed for counsel fees was in accordance with the Tariff. The disbursements claimed in the amount of $1,280.36 were supported by receipts and I am satisfied that they were essential for the conduct of the appeal. I will allow the full amount claimed for counsel fees and disbursements.

[4] The Bill of Costs of the Respondent is taxed and $10,980.36 is allowed.

Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 1st day of March 2012.

"B.G. Tanasychuk"
Taxing Officer

[Burnaby49]

Things are moving in the Lawson world, a trial date is finally set, so it's time to give them another look based on some background material I've found. I recently spent part of an afternoon at the criminal records section of the Supreme Court of British Columbia digging for information on the Lawsons and got a copy of their original indictment. So let's see what's in it.

Count 1
Keith David LAWSON (note, all caps! He tried to use that as an out as explained in the first posting in this discussion), at or near the City of Burnaby in the Province of British Columbia (another note - obviously Burnaby49's home town. Figure out for yourself what the 49 means), and elsewhere, between April 15, 2002 and August 26, 2010, did counsel various persons to commit the indictable offense of fraud in excess of five thousand dollars, contrary to section 380 of the Criminal Code and did thereby commit an offense contrary to section 464(a) of the Criminal Code.

This is the charge dealing with his purported activities as a Poriskyite promoter. Next is this, straight up income tax evasion;

Count 2
Keith David LAWSON, of the City of Burnaby, Province of British Columbia, between December 31, 2003 and May 1, 2009, did wilfully evade or attempt to evade payment of taxes imposed by the Income Tax Act in the amount of $46,176.20 for failing to report his taxable income in the amount of $213,213.13 for the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2008 taxation years and dif thereby commit an offense contrary to section 239(1)(d) of the said Act.

There are two more charges, one for making false or deceptive statements in his 2008 income tax return and understating his taxable income by $12,759 and a second for failing to remit $12,223 in goods and Services taxes between 2005 and 2009.

Now May's turn;

Count 6
May DANG-LAWSON, of the city of Burnaby, Province of British Columbia, between May 30, 2005 and May 1, 2008 did make, or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in. the making of false or deceptive statement in her T1 Individual Tax Return for the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 taxation years, filed as a requirement by the Income Tax Act, by falsely claiming spousal amounts of $31,337.00 for her husband as a dependant, and did thereby commit an offense contrary to section 239(1)a of the said act.

There is another charge for her, essentially the same as above with an added $5,932 of evaded payments under section 239(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Their joint charges are a good illustration of how the brilliant Porisky revelations, claimed to be the result of a rigorous legal analysis of Canadian income tax law, were really nothing but a shabby facade for criminal income tax evasion. Unfortunately this means it's time for another explanation of the rationale of the Porisky scheme (I know, well ploughed ground, but bear with me). Porisky said we Canadians don't have to pay income tax because each of us are, in law, two people, the natural man and the legal man. Legal man earns the income and is taxable on it. But instead of doing that he is entitled to pass all the money on to the natural man who isn't taxable and can do what he wants with it since the other guy owes the tax. While the natural man has no income tax obligations he is still entitled to the full benefits of government, pensions, tax credits, free medical care, whatever. Who can argue with the pure logic of that?

But how to take advantage of this knowledge? The options are drastically different depending on whether you are an employee or self employed. Let's assume I'm a Porisky true believer but employed by someone else (as I was when I was a CRA employee) then income tax is taken off my paycheck before I can get my hands on it so I can't just stop paying it. If I want it back my only option is to appeal my assessment and fight it out in Tax Court on the merits of Porisky's analysis of the Income Tax Act. Not a practical solution because I know I'll lose, exactly as the Kions did;

Oh, Canada
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=5828

To quote the court;

Like others of their ilk, though opposed to paying taxes themselves, the Kions had no compunction about wasting the tax dollars of their fellow Canadians by failing to comply with their obligations under the law and prosecuting nonsensical claims at the administrative level and in the judicial system. Nor did their philosophical underpinnings prevent them from pocketing amounts received for the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Tax Credit.

So, not surprisingly, Poriskyites who are not self-employed have been very reluctant to take this path.

However a self-employed individual can take either of two directions, one legal, one not. Assume I'm self-employed making say $50,000 a year and want to take the legal route. I tell the CRA about my gross income in my income tax return but don't declare any taxable income or pay any tax. All reported fair and square. If the CRA starts pestering me about the tax I just have to tell them "The legal person earned it, go pester him about the tax. And keep away from that bank account where the money was deposited; it belongs to me, the natural person." Unfortunately the CRA, not being versed in the deeper truths of income tax laws as revealed by Porisky, isn't going to accept that. They are going to come after the natural man and his assets; suddenly the natural man Burnaby49 finds himself facing CRA collection action for the taxes owed by that deadbeat legal man Burnaby49 who is refusing to pay his fair share of taxes. The only way that natural man Burnaby49 can stop this is to do what any employee can do, appeal the assessment and take my Porisky arguments to the Tax Court of Canada.

The other direction that I can take as a self-employed person is the criminal one, just don't tell the CRA about my income. Since I sincerely believe I'm not taxable why bother with all the bookkeeping and hassle of the CRA coming after me? So it is no coincidence that all of the Poriskyites charged with tax evasion have been self employed. Being a cold unfeeling ex CRA auditor I'm cynical about their motives for hiding their income. In my opinion their non-payment of income tax wasn't because of a misguided but sincere belief that Porisky was right; they didn't pay because they were actively and deliberately evading their income tax obligations and they just using Porisky's bullshit as a superficial gloss to justify their criminal behavior if the CRA ever went after them.

Which brings us to the Lawsons. Keith has been charged with being a promoter and evading tax on the money he made from that activity. All of this everyday standard tax evasion of not reporting income, just like the guy that put in your kitchen cabinets or drywalled your basement. But his wife isn't in a situation where she can do this. While she has a good job (discussed below) she's an employee so taxes are taken off at source. If she wanted them back she had to reveal herself as a Poriskyite and fight her beliefs in Tax Court.

Rather than take this route the indictment claims she worked with what she had, a purportedly deadbeat husband she had to support since he wasn't making any income. So while Keith made (so the CRA says) an undeclared quarter of a million over a seven year period, his wife claimed him as a dependant who earned nothing. The taxes she's accused of stealing by these deductions were pocket change in the overall scheme of things, just shabby small-time grifting, but enough to have her hit with criminal tax evasion charges. Keep in mind that these are all just unproven charges but, if she's convicted, think of the greed and risk involved. It wasn't enough that Keith was counseling tax evasion and avoiding tax on a pile of money he got by doing this; May had to have her share too and evaded, maybe, fifteen thousand or so in tax by her false deductions.

So what does May Dang-Lawson do for a living? She's a microbiologist who, for almost twenty years, has been managing a lab at the University of British Columbia!

https://www.microbiology.ubc.ca/researc ... ld/members

and helping produce things like this;

Tse, K.W.K., K.B.L. Lin, M. Dang-Lawson, A. Guzman-Perez, G.E. Aspnes, L. Buckbinder, and M.R. Gold, Small molecule inhibitors of the Pyk2 and FAK kinases modulate chemoattractant-induced migration, adhesion and Akt activation in follicular and marginal zone B cells (2012) Cell. Immunol. 275: 47-54. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22507871

Tse KW, Dang-Lawson M, Lee RL, Vong D, Bulic A, Buckbinder L, Gold MR.(2009) B cell receptor-induced phosphorylation of Pyk2 and focal adhesion kinase involves integrins and the Rap GTPases and is required for B cell spreading. J Biol Chem. 2009 Aug 21;284(34):22865-77. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19561089

Lin, K.B.L., S.A. Freeman, S. Zabetian, H. Brugger, M. Weber, V. Lei, M. Dang-Lawson, K.W.K. Tse, R. Santamaria, F.D. Batista, and M.R. Gold (2008) The Rap GTPases regulate B cell morphology, immune synapse formation, and signaling by particulate B cell ligands, Immunity 28: 75-87. Cover photo. Reviewed in Nature Rev. Immunol. 8: 168, 2008
Pub Med

And here's a blurb on her employer;

Welcome to the Gold Lab in the LSC

Where we are:
The Gold lab is a member of the Immunology and Microbiology Department at the University of British Columbia located in the Life Sciences Centre, Vancouver BC.
What we do:
The lab focuses on understanding cell signaling, morphology, trafficking, and effector function of immune cells and tumour cells. We focus on the small GTPase Rap1 which has been shown to regulate many of these biological processes. Our latest work focuses on the the interplay between receptor signaling and cytoskeletal dynamics. For more detailed information about our research projects, click here.

Not, on the face of it, a person who would be involved in nickel and dime tax evasion but that is what the Crown has charged her with.

She has also had a little problem with constructing buildings without getting a building permit.

https://tnrd.civicweb.net/document/5226 ... 671FA2D862

So, with that as a background, on to the jurisprudence to date. Mostly already covered but this properly sequences it In order of the hearing dates;

Lawson v. Canada (National Revenue), 2011 FC 529
R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356
Lawson v. Canada (National Revenue), 2012 FCA 77


Lawson v. Canada (National Revenue), 2011 FC 529
In this one our hero is identified as "KEITH DAVID LAWSON, A NATURAL PERSON", not that it gains him any traction. He wanted to file an amended notice of application to use it for a collateral attack but he was denied. so this is his first appeal from that denial;

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1] The applicant’s appeal, pursuant to Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules, of the order of Prothonotary Lafrenière dated March 29, 2011, denying his motion to amend his notice of application is dismissed, as upon either a de novo review or a more deferential review of the Prothonotary’s discretion, the order is obviously correct.

[2] First, the sought amendments constitute a collateral attack on the applicant’s potential tax liabilities and search warrants issued by the BC Provincial Court which fall outside this Court’s jurisdiction.

[3] Second, the applicant challenges primarily administrative and investigatory steps of government officials that are not capable of being judicially reviewed.

[4] Third, the applicant’s allegations respecting the Minister’s application for a search warrant under the Criminal Code versus the Income Tax Act (or the Excise Tax Act) have no chance of success (see R v Multiform Manufacturing Co, 1990 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 624; and R v Grant, reflex, [1993] 3 SCR 233 at paras. 40-43).

[5] Fourth, it is clear, therefore, that the proposed amendments would not facilitate the determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties, and would not serve the interests of justice.

[6] Consequently, the applicant’s motion will be dismissed with costs in an amount fixed at $750

R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356
This decision is thoroughly reviewed in the first posting in this discussion. They tried to get the charges quashed because of the wording in the indictment isn't in accord with a style manual and their position that Burnaby doesn't really exist. One point of interest I didn't specifically note was that Keith was representing both himself and his wife in this hearing. So he's going into serious criminal charges self-represented and his wife seemed to have faith in his legal abilities.

Also, like Sigglekow's failed defense;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9894

He claimed that his, and his wife's purported fraudulent acts shouldn't be subject to criminal fraud charges. Just a minor issue of income tax interpretation that is best decided at the Tax Court of Canada, a civil court. Well they had that option and chose instead to go the fraud route so, tough.


Lawson v. Canada (National Revenue), 2012 FCA 77
I covered this in my March 16, 2012 posting. Larson, now back to be a "Natural Man" in the decision, was still trying to get that darned amended notice of application approved. Denied.

His wife wasn't included in this one so maybe she's getting independent legal advice. She needs it. Keith is coming up with nothing but stale shopworn doomed arguments that aren't going to get him an acquittal at trial. Speaking of which the Lawsons are currently slated for trial in Vancouver from March 9 to April 10, 2015. I'm not going to sit through that entire marathon but I'll check it out and report back.

[grixit]

If May persists in this, her next job will be helping a prison doctor do blood cultures.

[Burnaby49]

Charges have been stayed against May Dang-Lawson so she's out of the picture. Her charges were relatively minor in any case. Still full speed ahead for Keith with trial scheduled next March. He is still self-represented and I'm told he seems to be getting somewhat depressed about his chances. Since every other Poriskyite promoter brought to trial so far has been found guilty he has good reason for his pessimism.

[notorial dissent]

You mean a slow dim awareness of just how damn dumb he was being might just possibly be sinking in to the dark and dim recesses of his mind? Why the apostate, forsaking the blessed Saint Porisky who lead all to tax freedom.

[Burnaby49]

You mean a slow dim awareness of just how damn dumb he was being might just possibly be sinking in to the dark and dim recesses of his mind? Why the apostate, forsaking the blessed Saint Porisky who lead all to tax freedom.

Actually, from what I was told by a participant at his last hearing which I unfortunately missed, his plaintive cry was something along the lines of;

"Why not just throw me in jail now? Everybody thinks I'm guilty."

All in all a pretty accurate assessment of the situation. However, unless he is willing to plead guilty, we'll just have to wait until March to make it formal. I plan to be there.

Michael Spencer Millar, another Porisky promoter is having a preliminary inquiry on January 6th to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial (quick answer - Yes). I won't be there, I'll be in transit between Flagstaff and Tucson on the 6th so I can spend the 7th at the Pima Air museum. I've attended two of Millar's hearings to date and plan to start a new discussion on him soon. The last hearing was December 18th and one point of interest was that Millar was accompanied, and perhaps advised, by none other than our old friend :charles-norman: "Call me Charlie" holmes!

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9683

I went to chat with Charlie after the hearing. He remembered me from his own hearing but he was somewhat terse with me. Our relationship, sadly, seems to have turned frosty. Was it something I said? When he and Millar left Charley pointed me out to Millar so I'm on his radar now too.

[notorial dissent]

So, it's not that this dumb bunny has figured out that he was wrong, and that Saint Porisky is a fraud, just that the inevitable result is him going to jail?

[grixit]

I won't be there, I'll be in transit between Flagstaff and Tucson on the 6th so I can spend the 7th at the Pima Air museum.

I spent 6 years in Tucson. There are a lot of microbrews theere. I don't drink so i can't offer a recommendation; all i can do is mention that one product called "Tucson Blonde" was popular when i left in 2000. I can recommend the local fried chicken, though.

Also, if you have a chance to go by Davis Monthem Airforce Base, you'll see a lot of old planes that have been mothballed pending disposition. Sometimes you'll see one being dismantled. They start the process with a guillotine.

[Burnaby49]

I won't be there, I'll be in transit between Flagstaff and Tucson on the 6th so I can spend the 7th at the Pima Air museum.

I spent 6 years in Tucson. There are a lot of microbrews theere. I don't drink so i can't offer a recommendation; all i can do is mention that one product called "Tucson Blonde" was popular when i left in 2000. I can recommend the local fried chicken, though.

Also, if you have a chance to go by Davis Monthem Airforce Base, you'll see a lot of old planes that have been mothballed pending disposition. Sometimes you'll see one being dismantled. They start the process with a guillotine.

I've toured the boneyard in the past but won't do so again. Waste of time. You sit on a bus that drives between a row of various old planes while the guide tells you what the planes are and that's about it. If you check out the boneyard on Google Earth you can see the severed pieces of B-52 bombers. I believe that was done for SALT verification purposes. They chopped them up then left the pieces littered about so the Soviets could check them out with spy satellites to confirm compliance. The guillotine was the most efficient way to hack the planes up into large easily identified chunks.

As far as beer goes we are using this as a general guide;

http://www.craftbeeraz.com/arizona-beer-trail-road-map/

Which is why we are spending two nights in Flagstaff. A very good selection for a small town and it has a lot to see in the outlying areas. Sedona's too yuppie but I like Jerome and Prescott. We have two nights in the St. Michael in Prescott.

I like the B-Line Cafe in Tucson, at least I did when I was last there in 2008. Good beer selection given the small size of the restaurant. Tucson and Tempe (another two nights) have a lot of craft beer spots coming up.

[Burnaby49]

On February 18th I attended a Chambers Session at the Supreme Court of British Columbia where Lawson complained that he isn't getting the free legal help that he's demanding from the government that he's accused of defrauding. He started the session off with the Freeman boilerplate that he was here as a personal appearance. That did all of his predecessors a lot of good.

He wanted an adjournment on his tax evasion and counseling trial that is going to squash him like a bug because he is having difficulty getting legal aid. He's been refused once and he is in the process of appealing that refusal. He said that if this is also rejected he is going to make a Rowbotham application. If this sounds familiar it is because Eddy Sigglekow followed this exact same doomed path on his way to a criminal conviction for tax evasion and counseling tax evasion. First legal aid, then Rowbotham, then to trial unrepresented. I said in the Sigglekow discussion;

Sigglekow said he needed a lawyer to mount a Rowbotham application. To explain; a "Rowbotham/Fisher Application" is an application to the court by the accused in a criminal proceedings for Charter relief, usually a stay of proceedings, on the basis that the accused is unable to retain counsel and counsel is essential for a fair trial. Generally a Rowbotham is made when the accused claims he cannot afford counsel but is not qualified for legal aid. So, as I understand it, he needed to hire a lawyer to get his case tossed on the basis that he could not hire a lawyer. I get baffled by these legal complexities.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9894

I also said in respect to Sigglekow;

As a personal comment keep in mind the thing that pisses me off most about these clowns is how they refuse to acknowledge they have any responsibility to pay income tax to help fund the functions of their federal and provincial governments and, in fact, engage in criminally tax evasion to avoid paying anything. However they have no compunction whatever about demanding their full entitlement to the range of benefits that these governments offer. Entitlements funded through the taxes paid by people like me. It's nothing but brazen hypocrisy from worthless parasites.

That comment applies with equal validity to Lawson.

So the judge allowed Lawson time to go futilely tilting at windmills. His trial on March 9th has been deferred and another Chambers hearing is scheduled for March 11 at 2PM to see how he is getting on.

The two Crown counsel in charge of this are the same two lawyers who are handling Millar (another Poriskyite who is having a hearing tomorrow that I'll be attending) and they just finished Stanchfield. Are they being punished for something?

[Burnaby49]

A heads-up gang, Time for the deluge.

It's been a long time since I've made any posts on Lawson, my last one was February 13, 2015. This isn't because of any lack of activity on my part in attending his court hearings. I've been attending and recording but have been under multiple publication bans until now. I've written it all up as I went along and I now have a single-spaced Word document of almost 70 pages with at least 20 to go that I'm going to inflict on you all in the next few days. Trial is over and jury is deliberating so almost all of the bans have been lifted and It's time for a data dump of the pre-trial hearings and the trial. I'll get started as soon as the verdicts are in.

[NYGman]

Sounds like a novel, may have to savor it for the weekend read