They make 'em dumb in Canada too

[Burnaby49]

Tax Court of Canada decisions can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals. This is an automatic right of appeal. Federal Court of Appeal decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. As with the US it is at the discretion of the supreme court whether it accepts an appeal.

Given Klundert's obsession about the gross perversion of justice in convicting him of tax evasion I have no doubt he will go the Federal Court of Appeal route which will brush him off with a half dozen line decision. He will then make Leave to Appeal to the supreme court which will be denied. That should be it unless he makes another collateral attack somewhere. Res judicata has no meaning for him whatever.

Why am I quoting myself. To show my almost supernatural ability to forsee the future. Klundert just filed an appeal of the above Tax Court decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. They have to hear him but they won't be happy about having to waste time doing it.

[Burnaby49]

And here's yet another Porisky follower I previously missed that used Porisky's can't-fail methods and ended up in jail;

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/25 ... -over-her/

Her refusal to attend trial cost her a six month jail sentence she would have otherwise avoided;

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/ ... 83123.html

The newspaper article is incorrect about the reason for her jail term. She didn't get the jail time for tax evasion, she got it for skipping out and refusing to abide by conditions set for a conditional sentence. To quote;

"With all due respect, I do not accept this offer," Chobotar told provincial court Judge Lynn Stannard before being taken into custody. "This offer is not accepted," she said as court officers gathered her purse and jacket and led her away for transfer to the women's jail.

Where have we heard that one before?

Although Chobotar has no criminal record, the judge said she couldn't impose a conditional sentence on the 53-year-old woman because she wouldn't abide by the conditions.

At the beginning of her sentencing hearing Monday, Chobotar submitted a letter to the court saying "At no point have I ever willingly agreed to legally represent a taxpayer in these proceedings and I certainly have never agreed to do it for free... I charge a standard fee of $10 million to carry out any court order that this court issues."

The judge said it wasn't mental illness, fraud or concealment but "self-centred greed" that led Chobotar to claim she doesn't have to pay income tax.

Chobotar has shown no remorse, the judge said before sending her to jail as a deterrent and a denunciation.

"She has displayed a lack of respect for the court and the risk to reoffend is a concern," Stannard said.

The judge felt that there might be just a touch of hypocrisy in her stance;

She didn't want to pay any taxes but a good chunk of her living came from them, the court heard. More than 40 per cent of her income came from billing Manitoba Health, Manitoba Public Insurance and the Workers Compensation Board, which benefit from government funding provided by taxpayers.

Stannard said Chobotar didn't choose to live on an "island" but benefited from taxpayer-funded services such as roads, police and fire protection and schools. Chobotar didn't want to pay her fair share and didn't care if others would have to pay more, the judge said.

Time for an update on the continuing adventures of Ms. Chobotar. She was very recently convicted again on a tax issue, failing to file her 2008 to 2012 income tax returns. She was fined $6,000 ($1,000 for each year). She's now paid the fine and filed the returns. Her criminal conviction and jail term quoted above was in respect to tax evasion for the years 2002 to 2007. That got her a $162,513 fine but apparently she learned nothing. What she should have learned from her tax evasion conviction, at a minimum, was that the CRA had her in their sights and there was no way they were going to let her missing 2008-2012 returns fall through the cracks. So she forced them to take her to court and hit her with yet another criminal conviction and fine. She's moving into Eva Sydel territory now.

No published decision as yet, the information on her conviction comes from the CRA website (link below). At such time. if ever, that a written decision is released I'll post it. The CRA notice says;

"She has now expressed to the Court that she deeply regrets her involvement with the promoter of these false beliefs."

I'm skeptical. I think her only deep regret is that she didn't get away with it.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/cnvctns/ ... 4-eng.html

[Fmotlgroupie]

"She has now expressed to the Court that she deeply regrets her involvement with the promoter of these false beliefs."

I'm skeptical. I think her only deep regret is that she didn't get away with it.

Yes, but she regrets that deeply and whole-heartedly. That's got to count for something

[Burnaby49]

Back in July of last year I posted;

Tax Court of Canada decisions can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals. This is an automatic right of appeal. Federal Court of Appeal decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. As with the US it is at the discretion of the supreme court whether it accepts an appeal.

Given Klundert's obsession about the gross perversion of justice in convicting him of tax evasion I have no doubt he will go the Federal Court of Appeal route which will brush him off with a half dozen line decision. He will then make Leave to Appeal to the supreme court which will be denied. That should be it unless he makes another collateral attack somewhere. Res judicata has no meaning for him whatever.

Why am I quoting myself? To show my almost supernatural ability to forsee the future. Klundert just filed an appeal of the above Tax Court decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. They have to hear him but they won't be happy about having to waste time doing it.

Well the decision was released today, almost a year after he filed the appeal. Obviously not a priority for the Federal Court of Appeal. The court did note that Klundert also had a somewhat lacadaisical attitude towards getting this resolved;

[4] Subsequently, the jeopardy order was upheld by a judge of the Federal Court in a review conducted pursuant to subsection 225.2(8) of the Act.

[5] Approximately two years later, the appellant again sought to set aside or vary the jeopardy order to allow reasonable living expenses. The jeopardy order was again upheld; the reviewing judge found the appellant had not established that the order was unreasonable or constituted undue hardship.

He lost of course;

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/201 ... cnQAAAAAAQ

A little more analysis than I expected but nothing novel in the grounds to dismiss. All that is left for our boy is an application for Leave to Appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada. Maybe in another two years or so he'll give it a shot.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Well, he'll have to be a little faster than that. The deadline to initiate an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is 60 days from the date of the judgment: Supreme Court Act, RSC 1985, c S-26, s. 58(1)(a).

Though Jack gets a bonus of one month because July doesn't count: Supreme Court Act, s. 58(2). Lucky fellow!

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

And yet another Klundert decision. Easy to confuse with the one I just posted. Same court, both heard June 10th, 2014. The one already posted dealt with this;

1] For reasons cited as 2013 FC 110 (CanLII), 2013 FC 110, a judge of the Federal Court dismissed a motion brought by the appellant. The appellant sought an order that monies collected by the Canada Revenue Agency pursuant to a jeopardy order issued by the Federal Court be applied to criminal fines imposed upon the appellant as a result of a conviction for tax evasion.

[7] The appellant now argues that because evidence obtained during the investigation of his criminal tax evasion was used to obtain the jeopardy order, amounts collected under that order should first be applied to pay his criminal fines. He seeks this relief on the basis that:

i) The Canada Revenue Agency violated the principle articulated by the Supreme Court in R. v. Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 73, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757, at paragraph 84, that there must be “some measure of separation between the audit and investigative functions within” the Canada Revenue Agency;

ii) The Canada Revenue Agency used its criminal powers, namely the right to seek and obtain a search warrant under section 487 of the Code to enforce a civil debt; and

iii) The allocation of 100% of his income towards a civil liability together with his exposure to the issuance of a warrant for incarceration for non-payment of a fine, give rise to security of person “concerns” under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

Bit esoteric, relating to sequence of payments of money seized.

The current decision relates to his original reassessment at Tax Court. He's not happy with it, wants the Federal Court of Appeal to toss it out because he said it was based on evidence not admissible in court. Specifically he was found guilty of criminal tax evasion. The CRA just took the numbers from the criminal case and used them to reassess him for the years he was evading tax. He argued, at Tax Court and in this appeal, that evidence gathered in a criminal investigation cannot be used in a civil reassessment. Unfortunately he has it entirely backward. Information gathered in a civil audit (while there is also a criminal review underway) cannot be used in a criminal tax evasion trial. However information gathered as part of the criminal process can be used in a civil reassessment.

So the Federal Court of Appeal rejected his arguments with very little analysis;

[11] Because information was obtained by both administrative/audit processes and search warrant, it was incumbent on the appellant to point to specific evidence that was improperly obtained. However, no material facts were pled as to what information was improperly obtained or in what manner it was obtained, or that improperly obtained information was used.

[12] I agree with the Judge that the exposition of historical narrative combined with bare assertions results in an appeal premised upon conjecture, speculation and innuendo.

[13] The Judge also denied a request to amend the notice of appeal. In my view, the Judge properly denied such request because the proposed amendment related only to the relief requested and so would not cure the deficient nature of the pleading.

[14] The finding that the notice of appeal did not disclose a cause of action was dispositive of the motion to strike. It is therefore not necessary to consider whether the notice of appeal constituted an abuse of process. Therefore, we neither accept nor reject the Judge’s analysis.

[15] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/201 ... cnQAAAAAAQ









http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/201 ... cnQAAAAAAQ

[Burnaby49]

I said, in my June 19th posting about Klundert's Federal Court of Appeal loss;

A little more analysis than I expected but nothing novel in the grounds to dismiss. All that is left for our boy is an application for Leave to Appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada. Maybe in another two years or so he'll give it a shot.

I just got the belated news from my tax service that he filed for Leave to Appeal on August 6th. The chances of the Supreme Court of Canada granting his leave application are nil.

[The Observer]

The chances of the Supreme Court of Canada granting his leave application are nil.

Obviously your Supreme Court lacks the same sense of humor as our Supreme Court does in the US. If I was sitting on the bench of the high court of the land, I might agree to hear the idiot's appeals just so that I could laugh uproariously in his face, order one of the law clerks to apply a whipped cream pie to our silly appellant's face and then yell, "Next case!"

[Burnaby49]

The chances of the Supreme Court of Canada granting his leave application are nil.

Obviously your Supreme Court lacks the same sense of humor as our Supreme Court does in the US. If I was sitting on the bench of the high court of the land, I might agree to hear the idiot's appeals just so that I could laugh uproariously in his face, order one of the law clerks to apply a whipped cream pie to our silly appellant's face and then yell, "Next case!"

I agree that our SC is severely deficient in humour compared to yours. We all know what laugh riots Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are.

[The Observer]

I agree that our SC is severely deficient in humour compared to yours. We all know what laugh riots Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are.

No, I see that I did not communicate that clearly. I was trying to say that our own Supreme Court suffers from a severe lack of humor.

[Burnaby49]

I agree that our SC is severely deficient in humour compared to yours. We all know what laugh riots Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are.

No, I see that I did not communicate that clearly. I was trying to say that our own Supreme Court suffers from a severe lack of humor.

I realized that and was responding in kind. Nobody could picture any member of your SC or ours doing a five minute stand-up at Yuk Yuk's.

[webhick]

I agree that our SC is severely deficient in humour compared to yours. We all know what laugh riots Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are.

No, I see that I did not communicate that clearly. I was trying to say that our own Supreme Court suffers from a severe lack of humor.

I realized that and was responding in kind. Nobody could picture any member of your SC or ours doing a five minute stand-up at Yuk Yuk's.

Now I can't stop picturing it.

[grixit]

...And that's when i realized i was holding the citation list upside down! <beat> But you know, it made more sense that way!

[Burnaby49]

"webhick
Now I can't stop picturing it.

Who do you see, Ruth or Clarence? I'd go with Ginsberg & Thomas; the Jesting Jurists. Not exactly Nichols and May but you work with what you've got.

[webhick]

"webhick
Now I can't stop picturing it.

Who do you see, Ruth or Clarence? I'd go with Ginsberg & Thomas; the Jesting Jurists. Not exactly Nichols and May but you work with what you've got.

Mine's more along the lines of the Bluecollar Tour but with more liquor and maybe a donkey or mini-horse. On acid.

[LaVidaRoja]

Giving acid to an animal constitutes abuse. That's what interns are for

[Burnaby49]

Perhaps I spoke too soon. This article indicates that at least one of your Supremes could do a credible amateur stand-up;

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... court.html

I'm not conceding my position on Our Canadian Supremes though.

[Burnaby49]

And Klundert's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for some justice, at long last justice, was denied. From my tax service;

Supreme Court of Canada
35997 Klundert v The Queen (Leave to Appeal Dismissed with Costs)
Original english case. 2014-12-04

35996 Klundert v The Queen (Leave to Appeal Dismissed with Costs)
Original english case. 2014-12-04

He's racking up the costs. Good luck collecting them.