The infection is heading north!

[notorial dissent]

I don't know about a life, her obsession with Obama would pretty well seem to preclude that, but from a couple of articles I read early on it appeared she was either franchising her dental practice or at least had multiple offices she supposedly practiced out of. Don't know how her current notoriety has affected that part of it.

[Burnaby49]

by LPC » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:55 pm
Burnaby49 wrote:
A follow-up to Eva Sydel, the dentist who's obsession with the natural person argument basically took over her life.
A Canadian Orly Taitz?

(I'm assuming Orly Taitz had a life, or dental practice, to take over.)

Actually Eva Sydel follows a far different drummer. As the transcript of her lawsuit against the government for having the temerity to find her guilty of tax evasion states;

[5] Ms. Sydel claims that the investigation and prosecution taken against her were conducted in bad faith and without jurisdiction, and were improperly motivated by her association with the “detax movement”, which the Federal Defendants have sought to infiltrate and destroy. The plaintiff’s position is that the proceedings demonstrate a concerted strategy of persecution on the part of all the defendants, exemplified in part by the selection of a Jewish Judge and Prosecutor (given the fact that she is of German descent), and the fact that individual members of the Federal and Provincial Defendants are Freemasons who communicated in Masonic sign language during the course of her trial.

[6] The individual Provincial Defendants are all judges, members of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

[7] Ms. Sydel characterizes the allegations made in her statement of claim as matters of grave national importance. She says that they raise the issue of a “secret criminal gang operating inside the administration of justice in British Columbia”.

[8] Ms. Sydel says the improprieties and abuses set out in her claim led up to and culminated in her convictions and eventual incarceration. In this action Ms. Sydel claims $300,000,000.00 in damages, and seeks declarations that the Income Tax Act is invalid and that her convictions are unlawful and a nullity at law.

I realize $300,000,000 is chump-change to your sovereigns but its big money up here. As far as Obama is concerned Ms. Sydel has, as far as I know, kept her thoughts on his birthplace to herself.

[rogfulton]

Nice to see that at least one delusional person isn't claiming that events in foreign countries or by foreign nationals impact their legal situation.

Unlike some of our frequent subjects here on Quatloos who will, for obvious reasons, go unnamed.

[Burnaby49]

And, finally, the last shoe drops on our little tale, Porisky gets convicted! Not that I had any uncertainty about the outcome. Posters on a different thread argued against my position that these tax deniers are as much fun as watching a Monty Python skit. I offer the article below from today's Vancouver Sun as support for my claim. It doesn't get much more Pythoneque than;

He said the "absurdity" of Porisky's distinction between a natural person and a non-natural person was illustrated during the trial when he was asked whether he wanted to give any evidence.

"If I make the decision and I go in that box, which person, in the eyes of the law, am I?" he asked the judge.

"Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign-granted personality?"

"You're Mr. Porisky," the judge replied.

"That's fairly misleading because that's not clear enough for me," Porisky responded.

At that point, the judge tried to reduce the question to its simplest form:

"Let's assume you get into the stand and the Crown asks you, 'What did you have for break-fast today?' Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?"

"For me, it would, your honour, yes."

I'm going to get a copy of the decision to enjoy the whole show.


Chilliwack proponent of 'natural person' theory convicted of counselling fraudRead more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Chilli ... z1jvejGSy4

[Edited by LPC: We like to respect copyrights here, so I've deleted the complete cut-and-paste of the article, leaving the above excerpt under "fair use" doctrine. Anyone who wants to read the who article can use the link above.]

[webhick]

"Let's assume you get into the stand and the Crown asks you, 'What did you have for break-fast today?' Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?"

"For me, it would, your honour, yes."

One eats what the other regurgitates.

[LPC]

One of my favorite lines from Gilbert & Sullivan occurs when the Lord Chancellor has applied to himself for permission to marry a ward of his court:

Lord Chancellor: I feel the force of your remarks, but I am here in two capacities, and they clash, my Lords, they clash! I deeply grieve to say that in declining to entertain my last application to myself, I presumed to address myself in terms which render it impossible for me ever to apply to myself again. It was a most painful scene, my Lords – most painful!

Lord Tolloller: This is what it is to have two capacities! Let us be thankful that we are persons of no capacity whatever.

The problem that Porisky (and others like him) faces is not that he has two capacities, but that he has none.

[Burnaby49]

The Porisky tax evasion decision can be found at;

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC0067.htm

[The Observer]

One of my favorite lines from Gilbert & Sullivan occurs when the Lord Chancellor has applied to himself for permission to marry a ward of his court...

There is an apocryphal story about the Confederate general Braxton Bragg, who was known to be an argumentative, principled person beyond reason. During his earlier years as an officer at a frontier fort, he also served as the quartermaster. One day, he submitted a requisition for supplies for his unit. This he submitted to himself for approval as the quartermaster. He duly considered the supply order and decided the request was not necessary and disapproved it. He then switched back to his role as the unit lieutenant and decided he could provide more justification for the requisition and resubmitted the order back to himself as quartermaster. Again, he decided that the request lacked a basis for being filled and declined it again. At this point, he realized he could not make a decision either way and informed the commandant of the standoff that he, Bragg, was in. The commandant was reported to have responded, "My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself!"

[Burnaby49]

Porisky has finally had his sentencing hearing;

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Crown+r ... story.html

The judge says there is "no conceivable way" Porisky is not going to jail, the only issue is how long. The Crown wants 6 1/2 years, Porisky wants the applause of his fellow Canadians for his courage in fighting an unjust system. He spent much of his time at the hearing ranting about the tax system and said that he cheated on his taxes, and ran a prosperous business counseling others to cheat, "for my kids and everyone else’s kids. Maybe I was a fool, but I did it for true and just reasons." Not exactly the contrition necessary to get sympathy from the court.

Sentencing May 10th.

[Burnaby49]

And the decision is in! Porisky gets 4 1/2 years. Although, this being Canada, it will mean far less actual jail time. Girl friend gets a mild rebuke and whines even about that.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Chilliw ... story.html

[Burnaby49]

Porisky's oral reasons for sentencing;

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC0771.htm

[Burnaby49]

And Porisky isn't going down without a fight. He and the missus have filed interim appeals to revoke their sentences and fines until a full appeal of their convictions is heard. The judge cut some slack on the fines but stomped on the request to suspend their sentences:

[8] At para. 68, the trial judge stated that there was “no legal merit to any of Mr. Porisky’s arguments”. Having reviewed the judge’s reasons for judgment and Mr. Porisky’s written submissions and having listened to his oral submissions, I agree with the trial judge. In my view, the appeal from conviction is without merit; in the language of s. 679(3)(a), it is frivolous.

[9] I shall say little more about the merits of the conviction appeal other than to note that the grounds of appeal all appear to flow back to the “natural person theory”, or “Paradigm view”, as it was described by the trial judge. It may be that Mr. Porisky will be able to show a division of this Court that this is not so or that even if it is, that is not fatal to his appeal. My conclusion does not in any way suggest how a division of this Court with the benefit of a full record and complete submissions will decide this appeal.

[i][16] In my view, it is clear that the strength or weakness of the grounds of appeal is a factor that must be taken into account when considering the public interest factor on an application for judicial interim release. Strong grounds will favour reviewability, that is, release; weak grounds will favour enforcement, that is, rejection of the application. Seldom will this factor be determinative in and of itself; it is an aspect of considering whether detention is necessary in the public interest.

[17] I refuse to order the interim release of Mr. Porisky based on his conviction appeal.

[23] Considering all of these factors, I conclude that enforceability outweighs reviewability in the circumstances of this case. The sentence appeal is weak; the conviction appeal is without merit; the offences were serious; any reduction of sentence is unlikely to result in a conditional sentence.

[24] I refuse to order Mr. Porisky’s release based on his sentence appeal and dismiss Mr. Porisky’s application for judicial interim release.

I agree totally with one comment by the court. It's about time to drop the hammer on all this nonsense:

27] In my view, it is essential that this appeal be prosecuted with dispatch. Mr. Porisky asserts that the guidance of this Court is desirable so that those who think as he does will know the boundaries of what legally they can do. I agree with that.


http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/ ... CA0309.htm

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/ ... CA0308.htm

[notorial dissent]

The problem, of course, is that they will not like, let alone agree, with the determination of the court, since it will disagree in toto with their position, and certainly not be in their favor.

[tracer]

As a life-long American, I have trouble reading these Canadian tax cases whenever they refer to the "Federal government."

I keep having to reming myself that the national government of Canada is also called "Federal", just like the national government of the U.S. is, even though Canada still considers itself part of the British Empire. (Or a British commonwealth. Or something British. They have Queen Elizabeth on their money, I mean.)

[Burnaby49]

As a life-long American, I have trouble reading these Canadian tax cases whenever they refer to the "Federal government."

I keep having to reming myself that the national government of Canada is also called "Federal", just like the national government of the U.S. is, even though Canada still considers itself part of the British Empire. (Or a British commonwealth. Or something British. They have Queen Elizabeth on their money, I mean.)

"Federal" just indicates the level of a government body, not the type, like a large coffee indicates what size cup you're getting but not what type of coffee is in the cup. Canada has three levels of government, federal, provincial (your state governments), and municipal.

We are a member of the British Commonwealth but the term is meaningless, Britain has no effective administration over us. Under our parliamentary system the Queen is head of state but the position is purely ceremonial. The Queen legally "controls" Canada in the sense that all Acts of Parliament (equivalent to your Acts of Congress) must get Royal Assent from the Queen or her representative the Governor General. However assent is never refused.

The Canadian and American systems are largely the same but with some very significant differences. You vote, at the federal level, for Congressmen, Senators, and the President. We only vote for one, our local Member of Parliament, equivalent to your congress. We have a senate but it is only a toothless retirement home for political bagmen who are appointed to the senate by the government in power. The senate cannot initiate or stop legislation. At most it can delay it.

Our Prime Minister, the effective head of government, is the leader of whatever party wins the election. He is appointed by the party itself. The second place winner in an election is the Official Opposition with a lot of perks, other parties just get to sit in parliament. You have two political parties with sometimes an outlier, like Ross Perot, trying to get a foot in the door. We currently have five parties in parliament, Conservatives (government), New Democratic Party (Official Opposition), Liberals, Parti Québécois (with the goal of destroying the federal government, go figure) and one member of the Green Party.

Also we don't have fixed unchangeable election terms. Once a federal government is elected it has a maximum five year term. However it can be voted out anytime on a non-confidance motion by a majority vote of the other parties, not an uncommon event, or it can chose to dissolve itself and call an election.

I am not in any way a Royalist but I have no problem with our monarchy-base form of government. It works well and, as a political pragmatist, that's all I want. The Queen is on our money and postage stamps as Head of State but the symbolism doesn't bother me.

I spent my working life as a federal civil servant, equivalent to an IRS auditor. When I joined up I had to swear allegiance to the Queen personally before they'd hire me. I was frequently involved as an expert witness in income tax court cases. The government of Canada was always identified in court documents as "Her Majesty The Queen" so cases would be identified as "Joe Blow, Appellant, and Her Majesty The Queen Respondant". If Elizabeth was ever bothered by some of my antics in court, done under her name, she never said anything.

[Kestrel]

The government of Canada was always identified in court documents as "Her Majesty The Queen" so cases would be identified as "Joe Blow, Appellant, and Her Majesty The Queen Respondant".

When Charles finally ascends to the throne will all open cases be restyled "His Majesty the King Respondent", or only the cases filed after that date?

[wserra]

If Elizabeth was ever bothered by some of my antics in court, done under her name, she never said anything.

That you know of.

You don't work for the government any more, do you?

[Burnaby49]

The government of Canada was always identified in court documents as "Her Majesty The Queen" so cases would be identified as "Joe Blow, Appellant, and Her Majesty The Queen Respondant".

When Charles finally ascends to the throne will all open cases be restyled "His Majesty the King Respondent", or only the cases filed after that date?

A point I've not considered. Since government of Canada legal cases are conducted under the name of the reigning monarch acting as the current Canadian head of state I assume that cases in progress at the death of a monarch would be re-titled since the crown passes immediately upon death. While Elizabeth II had her Coronation on 2 June 1953 she automatically ascended to the throne over a year earlier on 6 February 1952, when her father died. The one year waiting period was standard, to get mourning out of the way. Her Coronation, for all its pomp, was actually just a ceremony confirming an existing fact.

Clearly there will be a protocol in place even if not used for the past sixty years. However, since I spent my entire 35 year government career with Elizabeth as queen, it was never an issue. I should be meeting a federal Department of Justice lawyer tomorrow about an upcoming tax trial and, if I remember, I'll ask him.

[Burnaby49]

If Elizabeth was ever bothered by some of my antics in court, done under her name, she never said anything.

That you know of.

You don't work for the government any more, do you?

Nope, retired. However it seems the federal Department of Justice wants me back to clear up some loose ends going to trial from cases I worked on over five years ago. Tax resolution can be a drawn-out process.

[Burnaby49]

A further comment on how the system works re Elizabeth being head of the Canadian government but having no powers of any kind. At her coronation she was asked;

"Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?"

You can guess how much power she has in Pakistan. India isn't in there because they stopped recognizing the british crown as head of state when they gained independence in 1950.