- R. v. Fischer, 2013 BCPC 154: http://canlii.ca/t/fzf8j
The majority of the judgment recaps the audit, search and seizure of Fischer’s financial documentation, and calculation of the outstanding income tax.
Fun stuff: Fischer is a member of the Sovereign Squamish Government (see viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6171). He also appears to have been interested in several “tax protestor” schemes, including that of Porisky: paras. 4, 44-45, 48. There is a second "tax protestor" scheme mentioned, "Fiscal Arbitrators", which is new to me, but I see there are cases on CanLII that discuss that too.
Fischer himself refused to participate in the trial, and so the proceeding occurred ex parte: para. 2. Well, that’s not entirely true, because initially “Ambassador” Fischer was represented by Irene Gravenhorst of the Sovereign Squamish Government, until she was thrown out of the court, transcript at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/94839762/SINI ... ANSMAY2012
Very interestingly, Judge Mrozinski also found Fischer guilty of tax evasion (paras. 73-74), as Fischer made no effort to rebut the implied meaning of “tax protester” documents found in his possession and that Fischer had employed such concepts in his communication with the CRA, and via the simple degree of income that was not correctly reported (para. 72):
Fischer will be sentenced for a single conviction of tax evasion. The false tax return convictions were stayed as included and lesser offences.With respect to his intent or mens rea, I have been guided by the discussion of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Klundert where, at para 45, the court accepted that the Act is complex and that persons who out of mistake or ignorance fail to pay their taxes may not meet the fault requirements in s. 239(1)(d) of the Act. If there was some evidence on which it could be inferred that Mr. Fischer mistakenly failed to report his income due to lack of knowledge, reliance on an expert, or a mistake of law, an acquittal might follow. But here, there is no such evidence. Rather, the evidence linking Mr. Fischer to the tax protest movement, including his own emails, suggests an intention not to pay tax. It is clear that refusing to pay income tax because one disagrees with the law itself is not a defence. Even without this evidence, Mr. Fischer’s tax returns for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 are so far from his earned income, which he deposited regularly into his Scotia Account, there can be no question and I find that Mr. Fischer did not do so in error.
Another interesting observation at para. 45 is that the court concludes that in an ex parte proceeding it has no obligation to evaluate and consider any possible OPCA defence because those “defences” are nonsense:
There has been some interesting news media reporting on this case, the most detailed is provided by the Nelson Star (http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/212999571.html). This rounds out the narrative and drama. Fischer was not present in court for the judgment on Tuesday, but instead “… stood outside with dozens of supporters in peaceful protest.” An arrest warrant was then issued for Fischer. Sounds like he lost his medical licence as well.Though this court is aware that there is an association in the evidence between Mr. Fischer and the tax protest movement which has been so fully described by Rooke A.C.J. in Meads v. Meads, [2012] A.J. No. 980, that issue is not before me. While the court has many obligations to the accused in the context of an ex parte trial, or even with regard to a self represented accused, that obligation cannot go so far as to require the Court to raise or consider the sorts of arguments that may be made by tax protestors in regard to these charges as an example.
While Fischer wasn’t talking, Irene had some ‘stuff’ to say:
Apparently the “Sovereign Squamish Government’s common law court” has already issued a default judgment in his favour, which includes a $333 trillion daily penalty for non-payment. Good luck with that Warren! I somehow doubt that the Sovereign Squamish Government will provide any useful form of international immunity, no matter what Irene says.Fischer had little interest in talking to media outside the courthouse. Irene-Maus Gravenhorst (who prefers to be identified as ©Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst-Kiapilanoq-CAPILANO™ in print), a member of the Sovereign Squamish Government who has been speaking on Fischer’s behalf, explained that Fischer is awaiting settlement on a counterclaim, which he filed through their government's court, seeking financial compensation for "criminal violations against him." He will not participate in the BC court system until he's received his settlement, according to Gravenhorst.
Fischer is seeking trillions of dollars in damages from everyone involved in the provincial court case, from the judges to the Canada Revenue Agency representatives who searched his home for evidence and the Nelson Police Department officers who supervised the search.
An earlier report (http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/204196021.html) has this explanation as well:
Something I see quite often from certain Freeman gurus is that the trick to avoid court jurisdiction is just to not show up. Hmm. Guess maybe that does not work either.Outside the courthouse, the Star asked Fischer why he hadn't gone inside. He said he would comment on the condition that he be referred to as "©Warren-Joseph-Darnell: Fischer™" in print, then said "we're standing here because we're sovereign and we do not submit to their authority over us."
Fischer also said he was waiting for settlement on a debt contract worth a dollar amount "in the quadrillions" before he would negotiate with the courts.
For your amusement, here’s a video by the ‘prickly one’ himself, along with his mighty SSG court documents: http://sovcom.net/?s=warren+fischer&sea ... chBtn.y=16
No one disputed his powerful filed documents, so of course, Fischer wins! Take that Corporations of Canada and British Columbia! He’s filed liens too – I sure hope that isn’t an aggravating circumstance during sentencing…
SMS Möwe
