Edwin Siggelkow - Porisky Detaxer

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Spotted what I believe is another Poriskyite Detaxer working his way through the courts: Edwin Siggelkow. What initially caught my attention was a posting on the "private-person.com" website of upcoming hearings (http://private-person.com/blog/upcoming-court-dates/), which has these entries:

Edwin Siggelkow says: October 2, 2013 at 2:57 am
Oct 29 in Edmonton = Alberta Court of Appeal hearing on Judicial Review of search warrant policy

Dec 9 in GP hearing on 3 motions – exclusion of evidence – time charter relief – compel disclosure

Trial dates are set for Sept 8 into Oct 2014

...

Edwin Siggelkow says January 10, 2013 at 6:30 am
Edwin Siggelkow – In Grande Praire Alberta – Set aside for my Prelim are 10 days the first 5 days are from July 8 – 12 the second if needed are from Aug 26 to 30.

I'm not sure who is behind private-person.com, but it's an OPCA promotion site which I really need to get around to profiling one of these days. It has associations with David-Kevin: Lindsay and Glenn Winningham Fearn - so you know you're getting high-quality information.

I digress.

Edwin's legal actions to date appear to focus on his attempt to have the courts conclude that search warrants used by the CRA to recover evidence from his residence were unlawful. One set of judgments were in the Federal Courts:

• Siggelkow v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 884: http://canlii.ca/t/fmcdw
  
  Canada (Attorney General) v. Siggelkow, 2012 FCA 123: http://canlii.ca/t/frc7m

Interestingly, Siggelkow's actions were in parallel with identical litigation by Gerald Blerot (Canada (Attorney General) v. Blerot, 2012 FCA 124), the recently sentenced Poriskyite promoter discussed in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9275) and Douglas and Patricia Lewry (Canada (Attorney General) v. Lewry, 2012 FCA 125). Douglas appears to be yet another Poriskyite promoter (viewtopic.php?f=46&t=8317) (R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 at paras 49-51: http://canlii.ca/t/2c05t).

In each case the Federal Court of Appeal simply concluded that the search warrant challenges were properly in provincial rather than Federal courts, and this was a collateral attack on those other proceedings.

So much for that.

There are two Alberta decisions that also relate to Siggelkow, and the same search warrant issue:

• Siggelkow v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ABQB 116: http://canlii.ca/t/fwdv4
  
  Siggelkow v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ABCA 388: http://canlii.ca/t/g1w2n

Like the Federal Court actions these two decisions don't really discuss Siggelkow's alleged misconduct. The Alberta Queen's Bench decision chiefly focuses on whether Siggelkow's application for the court to review the search warrants should be permitted, as he did not make the 6 month limitations period deadline. Siggelkow sought an extension of that deadline. His argument seems to be that the CRA was obliged by its own policies to obtain a search warrant via Criminal Code rather than Income Tax Act provisions. The problem? He had no evidence of that.

Both the courts reject his application on that basis.

As usual, I tried to expand a profile for Edwin. I believe this is his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/edwin.siggelkow), but it doesn't have much content of interest.

It appears he tried a shot at politics, running for the "Canadian Action Party" in 2008 (http://www.fairviewpost.com/2008/09/22/ ... ion-on-spp). He didn't win, received 0.88% of the votes (http://www.cbc.ca/news2/canadavotes/rid ... idate.html), but doesn't seem to mind (http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2008/ ... -a-success).

Otherwise, that's it.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Siggelkow's attempt to do an end-run around the evidence by questioning the search warrant is very common and is a standard defense tactic amongst Canadians charged with tax evasion. This can take two forms; one essentially attempts to exclude evidence gathered under the warrant and the other to exclude at least some evidence gathered before the warrant search;

1 - Exclude evidence gathered as a result of a search warrant - Siggelkow tried to get the warrant thrown out. If so all of the evidence gathered from the search would have been inadmissable for criminal purposes. The Crown can get a search warrant for tax evasion two ways, through S. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act (the criminal tax evasion section) or by applying to the provincial court where the offender is situated and getting a provincial judge to OK it. Crown generally proceeds through S.231.3 but doesn't have to. Taxpayers argue that the CRA should be required to use S.231.3, basically because the section exists in the Income Tax Act so it somehow overrides provincial authority. I haven't delved too deeply into the arguments. As the Federal Court of Appeal said in Mowe's link;

[8] It is now apparent that what is to be considered as grounds for relief under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, is not the issuance of the search and seizure warrants in and of themselves. Rather, the argument brought forth is that CRA’s practice of applying for these warrants under section 487 of the Criminal Code is illegal, as it “bypasses” the procedures for warrants under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. The procedures under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act are argued to be more stringent, and are argued to be more responsive to the Applicant’s rights under the Charter. Thus, the question is not the issuance of warrants in the Applicant’s particular case, but whether, as a matter of policy, or practice, or as a simple matter of fact, if CRA’s practice to proceed by the application of section 487 of the Criminal Code is legal.

However they have all failed. The Supreme Court of Canada covered this general issue decades ago;

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs ... 5/index.do

A comment on CRA policy, Siggelkow apparently argued that the Crown was going against its own policy by not using S.231.3. So what? If he was right how would that invalidate the warrant? The CRA has all kinds of policies both for constancy and administrative convenience. However policies aren't law and aren't binding on the courts. If the CRA has a policy of applying the law one way and then does it another the issue, at trial, isn't whether CRA policy is binding on the CRA, but whether the application of the law at issue is correct. The courts have said over and over they don't care about the CRA's administrative policies. So the only question here is whether the CRA followed valid law in getting the search warrant. Since the answer is yes it is a doomed argument for guys like Sigglekow.

2 - Exclude evidence gathered before a search warrant is issued - CRA audit has different operating levels, civil review (your normal tax audit) and criminal investigations for tax evasion. These are, in theory, entirely separate. The normal everyday audit sections do the civil stuff and a section called (at least in my day, it may have changed names, CRA's big on that) Special Investigations (SI) does the criminal. These are entirely separate functions, physically and administratively. SI is a black hole as far as audit is concerned and there is very little communication except for potential fraud referrals from audit. SI, by and large, does not generate its own workload. This comes from audit. An auditor will be digging away at a standard file and find something amiss, undisclosed bank accounts, unreported cash sales etc. In the good old days the auditor would amble over to SI and discuss it with them. SI would give advice on how to proceed, tell the auditor what to look for, basically build up a case while the taxpayer was unaware he was in the crosshairs for a potential criminal charge. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms changed all that. The Crown lost badly in a few Supreme Court of Canada cases where the court decided that the taxpayer's charter rights had been violated by conducting a criminal investigation without advising him. For anyone interested in the constitutional issues the lead case on this is Jarvis;

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs ... mlzAAAAAAE

The issue was protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Essentially Jarvis said that the administrative civil audits and the criminal audits had to be entirely separate and as soon as an investigation became criminal the taxpayer had to be advised of his rights. If not, any evidence collected under the warrant and any evidence collected before the warrant but while the CRA was proceeding criminally had to be excluded. As the summary for the Supreme Court decision said;

The taxpayer was charged with tax evasion under s. 239 of the Act. The trial judge held that the audit had effectively become an investigation as of March 16, 1994. Since the auditor failed to caution the taxpayer at the April 11 meeting, the statements and documents gathered at that meeting were obtained in violation of his rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and reference to that information in the Information to Obtain A Search Warrant was removed. The trial judge concluded that what remained did not provide “reasonable grounds” for a search warrant and, as a result, the execution of the searches violated the taxpayer’s s. 8 Charter rights. He also concluded that the banking records obtained by way of s. 231.2(1) in early 1995 violated the taxpayer’s s. 8 rights. Pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, the 1995 banking information and the evidence obtained at the April 11 meeting and through the searches were excluded. The trial judge granted a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. The summary conviction appeal judge ordered a new trial, holding that only the taxpayer’s statements during the April 11 meeting should have been excluded from the Information to Obtain and that the search warrant otherwise had been validly issued. The Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal and affirmed the order for a new trial.

The Supreme Court supported the trial judge's acquittal.

Since then the CRA has been very careful to separate the two functions to avoid further Jarvis acquittals because of tainted evidence. However the moment when an investigation changes from a civil to a criminal review is a very gray area rather than a straight fact-based decision. SI gets almost all of its workload from auditors doing civil reviews. Obviously an auditor wouldn't refer a case to SI unless he had a very strong indication of fraud, an indication based on evidence gathered in the civil review. So when does it turn into a fraud review? At the first inkling on the auditor's part something is wrong? After the auditor has wrapped everything up in a package for SI? Somewhere in between? Nebulous stuff not always open to simple analysis.

As a result it is a very common tactic by people charged with tax evasion to challenge the admissibility of evidence on the basis that it was gathered in a civil review but as part of an actual criminal review. No matter how many safeguards the CRA puts in place there is always something that is open to challenge because there is never a defined fine line. There are many decisions on this issue. The latest, just released a few days ago, is linked below. The analysis in it, and the level of review, is standard for these cases.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/20 ... MxIAAAAAAB

[Fmotlgroupie]

It's also pretty standard in drug cases for the trial to be all about the search warrant. There will be a void dire on the warrant (a "trial within a trial" as they always say, with the police testifying and being cross-examined so that the defence can try to show that the search warrant should not have been issued), with the defence usually acknowledging that if the evidence is admissible then the defendant is totally guilty. It sounds like a big admission but really this is the only alternative (from the News of the Weird):

Briton Jack Harvey, 42, drew a three-plus-year sentence in Truro Crown Court in February following his guilty plea on drug charges. Earlier, he had insisted that police had planted the drugs they found in his house and car, and even that a stranger (maybe "some filthy woman," he said) must be the owner of that cocaine and heroin that police found taped to his testicles. [WestBriton.co.uk, 2-6-2014]

[Burnaby49]

A Sigglekow update.

Trial underway

A judge and jury trial scheduled to run 20 days in Grande Prairie began Monday with selection of a jury.

Edwin McCallum Siggelkow, 64, is facing a number of charges including tax evasion and four counts of giving a false or deceptive statement.

http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2014/ ... to-october

A twenty day trial for a jury to sit through while another obnoxious Poriskyite asshole rambles on how he doesn't have to pay taxes because he's smarter than everybody else. Well the twenty days is almost up so I'm waiting for the news of his triumphant victory.

I'd say it isn't the best alternative for these Poriskyites to have jury trials. They don't come across well to people who actually pay tax. As I said in a Denise Eddy (yet another Poriskyite) posting;

First a brief chat about Denise herself, the decisions don't really give a feel for her. I've heard that she is an extremely unpleasant individual who's hostile, arrogant, negative attitude in court is costing her, the court is getting pissed off. She is demanding a jury trial. Not, I think, a good idea based on the impression a jury would get of her from her conduct in court.

Not that it matters in the end. They all lose in front of judge-only trials too. The only one that has ever "won" in any way is Russ Porisky himself and his win was just procedural and temporary. He was convicted but the appeals court granted him a new trial because the trial judge didn't advise him properly on his right to a trial by jury.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7827

Speaking of Denise I've not found anything about her recently. I hope she didn't cop a plea. I want that trial decision!

[notorial dissent]

I was going to say it's a pity that you can't record their trials and show them just how silly, and in some cases unpleasant and nasty they come off, but they have done so in several cases and just don't see the link at all. So it really would be wasted on them.

[Burnaby49]

And the verdict is in!

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/10/02/g ... nt-to-jail

The tax involved is relatively trivial, about $27,000, and Siggelkow has no prior record, but he still got a fifteen month jail term, unusual for a Canadian tax evader. I can think of three reasons for this;

1 - The courts have been harsh in their treatment of Poriskyites.

2 - He was an avid promoter of the Porisky scheme, counseling other to commit fraud by evading their taxes. That sends the court ballistic.

3 - No doubt he was totally obnoxious and unrepentant at trial. While this is not a legal factor in sentencing it might, had the judge been on the fence (very unlikely), tipped the scales.

[Burnaby49]

An interesting cross-section of opinions in the comments;

Hibernator • 20 hours ago - This guy is not a tax protestor. He is a skuzz ball that wants other people to pay his way while he pays nothing.

cory667 >Hibernator • 4 hours agoWrong!
Where do you think that income tax goes?
It doesn't even go to canada.
It goes to the private rbc bank.
Because it's been made law that we pay them to print and use our own money.
It is the private bankers who own canada's debt. And when we use our money to pay on our debt they get to charge or a fee/interest for it.
It goes straight to the rothchild's who fund israel

cory667 • 4 hours agoIncome tax is slavery!
It was brought in to fund the war only.!
Once the war ended the income tax became illegal.
The government takes enough money off my check each month to afford the morgage on a 700000 home.
And what do they leave me with?
Not enough to get a loan for a 300000 home.

The government doesn't hesitate to F me. So I don't hesitate to F the government.

Pepe Pecas • 2 hours agoTax Agency should be put in Jail !!!!

Anne La Foote • 4 hours agoSeems like Darwin is helping cull the herd

YoureBanned • 5 hours ago Another "Freeloader on the Lam" idiot.


And one that I, as an ex CRA auditor can agree with;

Opi Niated • 18 hours agoGet the best accountant you can, take every available legal loophole & deduction, push the envelope right to the edge but always pay your taxes !

Except that people always seem to misjudge where that edge is and end up walking off it.

[grixit]

YoureBanned • 5 hours ago Another "Freeloader on the Lam" idiot.

Freeloader on the Lam, i love it!

I hereby nominate YoureBanned as an honorary quatloosian.

[Burnaby49]

There will unfortunately be no reasons for judgment for Siggelkow's tax evasion conviction because he had a trial by jury. When trial is by judge alone the judge generally writes a reasons for judgment explaining the basis of his decision. I've analyzed any number of these on Quatloos. However when it is a jury trial you get a guilty or not guilty and that's it. Jury's don't give reasons.

However I do have a couple of pre-trial decisions that are worth a look. Be advised, this is a long posting. I just got caught up in one man's struggle for justice in an uncaring system.

First a futile 2011 attempt to get the charges either dismissed or stayed on a number of arguments, all hopeless.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/8rdno529m ... %20101.pdf

I can't cut and paste from this, possibly the quirks of the PDF, so I'll paraphrase. His first beef was that the Crown had engaged in abuse of process, claiming that the Crown was using a criminal process to collect a civil debt. It was his argument that the CRA had agreed that this was nothing but a normal civil tax matter best dealt with at the Tax Court but then treacherously charged him with income tax evasion. I other words typical prosecution overreach, using the powers of the state to attack a citizen over a minor everyday tax dispute. Unfortunately his evidence supporting this fell somewhat short of what the court required.

It all goes back to the search under a warrant, the issue that provides the overall theme for most of this reasons for judgement. The Siggelkow family wasn't home when the CRA searched his house so they left a letter telling him that his tax affairs were "the subject of a criminal investigation that may result in charges being laid for non-compliance with the Income Tax Act . . . and if willful or fraudulent discrepancies were found charges may be laid against you". It ended "be advised that there exists an option of early resolution of the criminal case. If you wish to pursue an early resolution of this matter, please contact the investigator."

Siggie replied demanding that the CRA give anything back because the search warrant was "ineffective". He also said he was in favour of an early resolution whether or not there was a criminal case and asked for elaboration. The CRA responded with a letter basically saying that if he was willing to plead guilty to income tax evasion without requiring a trial or the involvement of the Crown prosecutor the CRA was open to an early resolution. Essentially a broad hint that if he plead guilty they'd go easier on him than they would if he forced a trial.

Siggelkow said in an affidavit that "I took Mr. Harris' statement to mean that that I was facing criminal charges but, that these charges would be dropped if I engaged in a "compromise" with the Canada Revenue Agency in regard to the alleged civil tax debt." I other words he claimed that he understood the letter to mean that the CRA admitted that this was just a civil tax matter, not criminal, and the threat of criminal proceedings was just the CRA's way of opening negotiations to force him to pay the taxes that the CRA claimed he owed. A novel way of interpreting plain English.

Judge wasn't buying it saying that this interpretation wasn't supported by even a cursory glance at the CRA letter. There was no reference to any "alleged civil tax debt" nor was there any hint that laying criminal charges was contingent on some mutual agreement regarding Sigglekow's outstanding taxes.

Judge also noted that, after receiving the CRA letter Siggelkow responded with a letter asking what facts he would have to plead to and what would be the Crown's sentencing recommendations. No hint of any civil tax matter.

On July 4th 2011 the CRA wrote Siggelkow with a calculation of the amount of the taxes they claimed he evaded and gave him 30 days to provide any additional information he might have in respect to these taxes. The CRA also said;

"In addition we will be referring this case to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for prosecution action. The details will be mailed to you at a later date under separate cover."

So, pretty simple on the face of it. Here is the amount of the taxes we determined that you evaded, we want you to pay them but, in addition, we are planning to prosecute you for income tax evasion. Not how Siggelkow claimed he read it however. In his affidavit he took that to mean that the CRA had made him an offer that if he were to pay the claimed civil tax liability prosecution action would cease.

Judge said there was nothing in the July 4th letter that could in any way be interpreted the way Sigglekow wanted it read. Judge thought it significant that in his response to the July 4th letter Siggelkow challenged the proposed tax adjustments on the basis of his natural person-artificial person argument. The judge also considered it very significant that, in this response, Siggelkow wrote;

"I have not violated any law nor did the taxpayer omit from the returns any taxable income"
In other words, screw your imaginary offer.

[46] On that assertion the accused made it clear that he owed no taxes nor would he be paying any alleged outstanding taxes. That would also offer, of course, a complete answer to any criminal complaint made against him.

The judge seemed to be somewhat skeptical that Siggie really believed what he claimed in his affidavit;

[57] But in that response he did offer to "conditionally" accept the Crown's offer. But his conditions do not appear sincere as they include demands that the Crown agree that various provisions of the income tax statutes do not say what the enactments specifically state; that certain reported cases do not say what they do in fact say; and that the Crown essentially adopt the natural person-artificial person dichotomy that is part of the Paradigm view of the tax cases; etc, etc.

Sigglekow was essentially saying that he was willing to compromise to the extent that he'd let the Crown agree that he and Porisky were completely right and that the Crown was entirely wrong and had no case against him. A hard negotiator! This generated more harsh words from the judge;

[59] The accused appears to have come to his "interpretation" rather recently, notwithstanding that in his written submissions to the Court he implies that he took certain "meanings" at the time that he received the correspondence.

[60] It might be suggested that the accused is not really sincere in his claim of an abuse of process that his tax liabilities are being collected through the use of the criminal process.

[61] but it is not necessary for the Court to have to come to a firm conclusion, one way or the other, on such a suggestion.

I've dwelled on this point in more detail than necessary but I enjoy dealing with accusations that my old employer, the CRA, resorts to lies and deceit when dealing with taxpayers. We got these claims all the time but, like Siggelkow's, they tend to be short of evidence apart from totally self-serving unsupported statements.

On to the next stupid demand. He asked for the disclosure of clearly irrelevant material. All CRA investigator training courses, a print out of all the time sheets for everyone working on his case, some Porisky related CRA Power Point presentation, CRA Policy manuals. Judge just said all irrelevant and dismissed the disclosure application.

Fine, Be that way, I'll just try something else. The next thing he threw against the wall was a bunch of complaints about the search warrants used to invade his house and steal his stuff. I used the plural "warrants" because, in addition to the warrant specifically allowing the search of his house, he challenged the warrant used to search Russell Porisky's house well before Sigglekow himself was a suspect. I really haven't given too much thought to this part of the application but it seems that Siggelkow was very concerned about a mass of emails extracted from both his, and Porisky's, computers and wanted the information extracted from the two computers excluded from the Crown's evidence.

Judge said Siggelkow misunderstood the law. The emails both sent and received by Porisky were specifically authorized by the search warrant and, while the search was authorized to gather evidence against Porisky, it could also be used as evidence against Siggelkow. Porisky's evidence was all validly obtained under s. 489(1) of the Criminal Code.

The next argument, while again clearly wrong, is at least marginally novel. Siggelkow asserted that the seizure of "hundreds of electronic communications" between himself and Porisky were, in effect, an interception of private communications and it was therefore improper for the CRA to have utilized s. 487 search warrants, they should have used a Part VI Criminal Code wiretap order.

The obvious problem with this is what "interception" means when applied to communications. The common usage is;

"to stop and take someone or something that is going from one place to another place before that person or thing gets there."

The Court said that wiretap orders target the interception of future and prospective communications. The emails in question weren't future or prospective communications, they were historic documents stored in the computers. So a wiretap authorization wasn't required.

Next up, the complaint that the search warrant was improperly signed and issued by the Provincial Court Judge because he neglected to fill in the time of day that the warrant was to be executed. True enough except that the CRA official in charge of the search spotted this and advised the judge who told him to fill in whatever time he required so the form was actually properly filled out.

Siggelkow argued that this carelessness on the part of the judge could support at least an inference that the judge was equally careless in reviewing the material the CRA had submitted to support their request for a warrant and the judge may not have given due consideration to the contents of the CRA's request.

Applications Judge didn't sugar-coat his conclusions to that comment;

[104] That is, in my view, nothing more than a complaint about technical difficulties dressed up as idle conjecture.

[105] The deficiencies are of little moment. See R v Herbert, 2002 OJ No. 3307 (C.A).

So next in Siggie's massive arsenal of WMD's was a whine that the Crown had obtained the warrant under s. 487 of the Criminal Code when there were perfectly adequate provisions for obtaining warrants under the Income Tax Act. This somehow violated his rights under s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom which states, in it's entirety "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

This is an issue that has been beaten to death in court over and over and over, and yet these morons still waste court time bringing it up. I guess since they are on trial for tax evasion they figure they're not paying for it. The rule is that the Crown can apply for a search warrant under either the Criminal code or the Income Tax Act. They are both valid and it's the Crown's choice which it utilizes. The courts have confirmed this in numerous decisions that it is entirely at the discretion of the Crown which route they take in applying for a warrant in respect to tax evasion.

However Sigglekow managed to grab a scrap from a previous decision that seemed to support his argument;

[107] He points to the decision in White, Ottenheimer & Baker v A.G. of Canada 2000 NFCA 36 where, faced with an identical complaint, the Court stated at paragraph 14:

There would appear to be no apparent reason why Revenue Canada should not have recourse to the Income Tax Act rather than the Criminal Code to deal with search and seizure situations.

However the judge pointed out that Siggelkow was being a bit disingenuous by being carefully selective on what he extracted from that decision;

[108] The accused chose not to quote from the two sentences immediately following:

For whatever reason, here it did not. That in itself I do not see as fatal ...

[109] It is no surprise that the recourse to s, 487 search warrants is not improper. The Supreme Court of Canada had previously ruled that it was entirely proper to do so . . .

The judge then cruelly cited R v Porisky 2012 BCSC 68 where Porisky had raised exactly the same argument in respect to exactly the same computer records seizure and failed.

There were a few more desultory arguments from Siggelkow re the searches but his heart wasn't really in them, all dismissed. So he fired the two last rounds in the chamber.

First an argument that the Provincial Court of Alberta had no jurisdiction to hear the case because it was just a civil income tax matter which lay within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada. The judge dismissed this point with harsh efficiency. He said that the accused claimed that his activities were "non-commercial" in nature and that this resulted in him having no taxable income and therefore there were no grounds for being criminally charged with tax evasion. The judge noted that this was the same argument found in cases set out in the Crown's material, some involving Paradigm adherents. All these prior arguments were dismissed and, in the judge's opinion, properly so. At best Siggelkow's argument that he was not taxable might serve as a basis for his defense but had nothing to do with the court's jurisdiction.

Last up was a request for a stay of proceedings because of unreasonable trial delay. Judge said that much of the delay was Sigglekow's own fault because of screw-ups (paraphrasing) he made due to his self-represented status, he wasted a lot of time making motions at the wrong procedural step, things like that. Siggelkow, the perpetual victim, blamed the Crown and Court for that because they didn't advise him of the proper way to do things. Well, tough. Not the Crown' job or the Court's to spoon feed a guy who chooses to represent himself.

With this set of applications dismissed Siggelkow had shot his wad. He'd argued everything he could to stop from being tried on the actual merits of the case but he was now faced with that dread eventuality. Except for one little preliminary issue to do with his demands for government money to fund his defense, you know, money from the same government that he was actively defrauding. The second document is a June 20, 2014 pre-trial motion on Sigglekow's request for a legal aid lawyer. This one gives an interesting perspective on his home life.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/e5ncerca7 ... QB_368.pdf

The issue considered under the motion was;

[1] On April 28, 2014 the accused filed a Notice of Motion seeking a court order compelling the Federal Crown to fund the cost of a lawyer to defend the accused on a number of tax evasion and related charges at his four week jury trial scheduled to commence on September 8, 2014 in Grande Prairie, Alberta.

So why did he want the Crown to pay for his legal help? 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. Sorry, ranting again, where was I? Right. So why did he want the Crown to pay for his legal help?

[19] Under oath the accused testified that he did not work and has not worked for some time. He and his wife agreed he would be a “stay at home dad” and home school their daughter while his wife worked outside the home.

[20] Thus the household income was only earned by the accused’s wife.

[21] The accused testified that his wife’s yearly income was approximately $70,000 per year in both 2013 and 2012.

[22] The accused ceased to home school his daughter and she returned to traditional schooling in September 2013.

[23] The accused is 62 years old and prior to his involvement in the Paradigm Educational Group earned his living as a truck driver.

[24] When asked why he was not working, at least since September 2013, the accused could not provide a compelling explanation. He claimed that these court proceedings are so overwhelming and distracting for him that he fears he could not concentrate enough to do any type of job. He also advised that he spends many hours each day and week working on his case. He is a constant attendee at the law library of the court house as he continues his legal research.

[25] On the other hand, the accused filed his written “Overview of Defence Position” on February 28, 2014 and advised therein that any future pretrial applications scheduling had to take into account that he was unavailable in July and August 2014, notwithstanding his trial will commence in September 2014. The reason for his unavailability was not provided. But it can safely be concluded that it is not to work.

I think I can answer that one. July and August are school summer holidays so he probably took care of the kid while his wife actually did something useful to support the family. However she was apparently not willing to support him in his quest to keep out of jail;

[26] The accused deposes that his wife is not able nor willing to assist the accused in helping to pay for counsel. The accused claims his wife regularly sends money back to the Philippines to assist her family there. He could not explain why she wouldn’t demonstrate the same type of familial altruism for her husband who, if convicted of these charges, faces a potential federal penitentiary sentence, which will separate him from her and their daughter.

[27] In his evidence before me, he testified that he was actually “reluctant” to ask his wife for money for his defence. He said that if he is convicted and goes to jail then she would be saddled with the legal debt and no way to pay it all off.

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.

The lawyers he had contacted to possibly act for him in this application were a hard lot and not sympathetic to a man struggling to fight the injustice of being required to pay his fair share;

[35] Only one reply was received. It was from a lawyer at Felesky Flynn on April 24, 2014, who wrote: “We are very good at tax evasion defence work but we are very expensive. If you require government funding for a defence through a Rowbothum[sic]/Fisher application then we are not the firm for you. Best of luck.”

Harsh, but an essential truth. Then the court mentioned a pile of Poriskyite cases coming up. More work for me!

[39] The assistance the accused has received in preparing any of his submissions is two-fold. First, there are irregular but ongoing discussions held with eight other accused who are also associated with Paradigm, and who, like the accused, are also facing their own tax evasion charges. These discussions are aimed at everyone sharing their research and ideas on how to defend against these charges. All but one are self-represented.

However the court considers one of his problems to be his own damn fault;

(iv) Seriousness of the Offences, Complexity and Length of Trial

[44] These are serious charges and, if convicted, the Crown will be seeking a penitentiary sentence. The accused is 62 years old and presumably has never been in jail before. Thus, by any measure, these are serious charges and very serious for the accused and his family.

[45] The length of the trial is misleading. Because the accused will not admit continuity of seizures, a number of witnesses must be called to deal with that point. The Crown is not calling any expert witnesses. The vast majority of the documents were seized from the accused or the head of his Paradigm group. The accused is quite familiar with all those documents, it would appear.

He said he wasn't capable of handling his own defense and gave an example;

[46] The accused in his written and oral submissions points to one example where his alleged deficiency in courtroom skills was identified by the Crown prosecutor. In the December 9, 2013 hearing on the pretrial applications, the prosecutor had alleged that the accused had not properly put evidence on the record. The accused submitted that his ignorance on how to even enter evidence properly was an excellent example of his deficiency in basic skills.

But unfortunately that example blew up in his face;

[47] But, a review of the December 9, 2013 transcript reveals that the court not only challenged the Crown’s complaint but concluded that she was wrong. Thus the upshot is that the lawyer was wrong; the non-lawyer accused got it right.

Siggelkow then gave a glimpse of his soon to be rejected defense. Tax law is just too darn complicated for the average Joe to avoid inadvertently getting caught up in income tax evasion! It could happen to any of us.

[52] There is really very little complexity about this case. Based upon witnesses who were former students of the accused, evidence will be called, I’m advised, showing the receipt of significant amounts of money by the accused from Paradigm students and which was deposited by him in his bank account. The Crown’s view is that this was essentially an operation or enterprise where money was earned that was taxable and no taxes were paid.

[53] The accused’s position is, as I understand it, that none of this money was taxable and hence no taxes were paid.

[54] Each side relies on their interpretation of the tax statutes.

[55] As a fallback position, the accused asserts that if he is wrong in his understanding of the law, his mistake of law is excusable upon the application of R v Klundert (2004) 187 CCC (3d) 417 (O.C.A.) at para 55.

Paragraph 55 of Klundert says;

[55] Section 239(1)(d) is part of an Act which is necessarily and notoriously complex. It is subject to ongoing revision. No lay person is expected to know all the complexities of the tax laws. It is accepted that people will act on the advice of professionals and that the advice will often turn on the meanings to be given to provisions in the Act that are open to various interpretations. Furthermore, it is accepted that one may legitimately structure one’s affairs so as to minimize tax liability. Considered in this legislative context, I have no difficulty in holding that a mistake or ignorance as to one’s liability to pay tax under the Act may negate the fault requirement in the provision, regardless of whether it is a factual mistake, a legal mistake, or a combination of both.

Unfortunately a deeper reading of Klundert, rather than just considering this paragraph in isolation, points to a problem the courts have with people like Sigglekow claiming ignorance as a defense;

[60] There are solid policy reasons for drawing a distinction between an accused who mistakenly believes that he or she is complying with the Act and an accused who knowingly violates the Act, but mistakenly believes that the Act is invalid. The former is trying to comply with the law. Particularly where the law is complex, a mistake concerning the applicable law can logically negate the blameworthiness of the person’s conduct. The latter is not trying to obey the law, but is instead deciding which laws should be obeyed. An acquittal based on a mistaken belief as to the validity of a law would undermine the rule of law.

[61] There can be no suggestion that a person who honestly believes that the Act is invalid has no option but to evade the payment of taxes and then defend a charge of tax evasion on the basis of a belief that the Act is invalid. As Dr. Klundert acknowledged, there were mechanisms in place whereby he could have challenged the validity of the Act without evading payment of taxes owed under the Act. He chose not to pursue any of those avenues. Indeed, even in this case, he did not defend the charge, as he clearly could have, by asking the judge to declare s. 239(1)(d) invalid.

Then the judge started on about Siggelkow's personal life;

[57] There is no evidence that the accused has arranged with his wife to set aside one nickel to hire a lawyer. There is no evidence of a loan being taken out against the equity in the matrimonial home. There was no thought to ask his adult son for a loan.

[58] I am satisfied that the accused would have been able to fund the cost of counsel had he chosen to work. I find that he was not and is not debilitated such that he is unable to drive truck – his previous vocation.

[59] I am not satisfied that he has pursued the issue of having his wife financially contribute to his defence with any degree of reasonable and expected vigour. His admitted reluctance to do so probably explains this lack of diligence. But, as with the decision not to work, he has voluntarily made his choices and must live with the consequences of exercising his free will.

[60] I might also observe, parenthetically, that the accused’s wife neither appeared in order to make comment nor provided anything in writing to help explain her alleged unwillingness to help out her husband financially at such a desperate time for him and the family. I find it passing strange that she would wholly ignore him and his financial plight but continue to willingly help out her family who reside in the Philippines.

"Passing strange"? Maybe she just recognized a losing hand. Then the court dropped the hammer;

[61] From all of the foregoing, I find that the accused has done nothing to financially assist himself to be able to retain counsel after being turned down by Legal Aid almost one and one half years ago for the simple reason that he was never seriously interested in having a lawyer. Let me explain why I find this to be so.

[62] The Crown’s disclosure includes seizures which refer to other Paradigm adherents being prosecuted and convicted for tax evasion. Critical commentary from persons who appear to be Paradigm adherents question various judicial comment and interpretations of tax law. I am satisfied that those persons who continue to espouse the Paradigm view of tax law know, and for many years have known, that they too run the risk of being charged, prosecuted and convicted of tax offences. All such persons, including the accused, have had ample time to prepare for their day in court and to decide if they will be proceeding with the assistance of counsel. Accordingly, when the accused has made no preparations, let alone real efforts, at putting together any funds for counsel can only suggest one thing – a lack of interest, let alone desire, in having a lawyer.

[63] I am satisfied that the accused had the ability to pay for counsel had he simply worked as a truck driver – his previous vocation.

[64] In such circumstances, it makes no sense for the public purse to pay for counsel when the accused has done absolutely nothing to financially help himself.

As you can tell I'm enjoying this immensely and since he has apparently appealed his conviction I've got more guilty pleasures to come. It's all a sad, sad comment on the kind of person that I am. Fortunately I'm comfortable with the knowledge that I'm a heartless bastard.

[Fmotlgroupie]

Wow, great haul of offline judgements, thanks! I suspect a judge's reasons for convicting him might not be as enlightening about Revenue Canada's (rather fair-seeming) processes or Ed's personal life.

There are a lot of Filipinos who have come to Alberta in the past decade or so, and in my experience they tend very strongly to hard work, rule-following, family loyalty and other traditional virtues. My instinct is to be sad for the lot of Ed's wife, who despite making good money married a much older, rather obstreperous man who won't work, will likely go bankrupt from his tax shenanigans, and will spend at least several months as a guest if Her Majesty. I can only hope that Ed isn't exaggerating her unwillingness to throw good money after bad.

[Burnaby49]

And I've got a hell of a lot more to post. An Edmontonian postage stamp covered Freeman! He's collected six decisions so far I have to get around to reviewing. I'm off to BC courts this week to see a trial session on another Poriskyite I've not yet discussed on Quatloos. Gregor Jahn has a hearing at the end of the month and Rory Hawes has a five day trial in December. Merry Christmas Rory! Then a wave of trials starting January into spring.

I've got a word file titled Quatloos - To do and I get depressed just looking at how it's growing. A cryptic note to myself about a possible post on something I've titled "Freeman tries to buy cigarettes. Fails. Gets Mom to buy them instead", something else about someone called Doris Jung, haven't even looked at that yet.

I've got a tentative title for a new discussion " Belanger & CERI - A case Study in Failure" which I plan to do as soon as the Volks saga is finally over. I've got more stupidity about their Federal Court application but waiting for some finality on that.

I'm thinking of doing a review of Gery Hart's seminal book "Call it Extortion" with brilliant can't fail detax advice like;

Page 55 of Hart's book has a "Questionnaire for Bureaucrats, Civil Servants, et al" which is THE questionnaire to give CRA auditors. It includes such penetrating questions as;

Education Level of Civil Servant

Kindergarten
Elementary
School for the Retarded
none

And on page 156 a really really really bad idea;

Another way to take a hack at a RevCan flunky is to infer that he (more than likely you will be corresponding with a male) is a member of the homosexual community. As a matter of fact, this tactic works with females, too.

and

"Little needs to be written about the use of insulting the personal cleanliness of the RevCan employees you will be corresponding with. . . . .So if you want to really demean the RevCan fascists do it personally, very personally: they have just become "unwashed, reeking, filthy, stinking, RevCan Fascist Gestapo KGB thieves". Sounds great doesn't it?"

"It will, you may be guaranteed, light a fire under the collar of whomever reads the letter. And it will be a fire that will burn on in their subconscious mind, long after the office day is finished, ultimately helping to sap the will from them, the will on which they reply to keep their morale in shape for the task of harassing you."

This doesn't even touch a big posting that I'm planning to do to gather all the accumulated information on Larry Zachow into one dedicated post which will include some new information I've got on him. No doubt Llwellyn would be interested in that. And there is a bunch of new Glenn Fearn videos. Actually I think I'll skip those. If anyone else is interested, go for it.

So, between Quatloos with its Freemen and income tax evaders, my lifelong hobby making model airplanes (I have more unmade kits that I can reasonably expect to finish in my projected lifetime and I'm still buying them), aircraft museums, and pubbing, I'm finding that there is no problem filling in the time in my retirement years.

Aircraft are the big one for me. In 2005 I went to Dayton Ohio to see one airplane, the B-70 bomber. In 2008 my pubbing friend and I did an 8,000 mile road trip from Vancouver to Florida and back to visit the Casino Tavern in La Crosse Wisconsin and for me to go to the US Navy Aviation Museum in Pensacola. I recently went to Los Angeles to see one of the two YF-23 Advanced Fighter prototypes. Next spring my wife and I plan to go to New York so that she can OD on art museums and I can achieve a goal I set, literally, half a century ago, to have a beer at McSorleys Tavern.

[grixit]

You've really got to set up a Paypal account. With all that you're doing to entertain us, we should be able to at least fund your pub visits.

[JamesVincent]

You've really got to set up a Paypal account. With all that you're doing to entertain us, we should be able to at least fund your pub visits.

Maybe he can call HopeGirl and get tips on setting up a Go Fund Me account.

[Burnaby49]

You've really got to set up a Paypal account. With all that you're doing to entertain us, we should be able to at least fund your pub visits.

Entertainment? You want entertainment? Rory Hawes is on trial in December! He's got real potential. I've been to two of his pre-trial hearings and both were extremely entertaining. The guy is a total blockhead who treats the court with disdain and impatience, as if the court was a pointless irritant in his otherwise vitally important life. Why pointless? He's going straight classic Freeman with the argument that the court has no jurisdiction over him so the prosecution will collapse if he's forced to actually waste time at a trial. What more could I ask for as an early Christmas present?

He's thirty-eight and this is his life so I suppose he's going for broke. I'll chronicle the train wreck.

[Burnaby49]

I was wrong! It's the result of a personality flaw of mine. I'm too big-hearted, too generous in my assessment of people, always looking to find the good in them. No doubt this comes across clearly in my postings.

Where did I go astray in my judgment this time? Here;

[25] On the other hand, the accused filed his written “Overview of Defence Position” on February 28, 2014 and advised therein that any future pretrial applications scheduling had to take into account that he was unavailable in July and August 2014, notwithstanding his trial will commence in September 2014. The reason for his unavailability was not provided. But it can safely be concluded that it is not to work.

In response to which I wrote;

I think I can answer that one. July and August are school summer holidays so he probably took care of the kid while his wife actually did something useful to support the family.

With foolish optimism I'd given Siggie the benefit of the doubt and concluded he was finally going to knuckle down to his duties as a husband and father and take on some of the responsibility of caring for his family. Then I found this;

http://alberta.jobs-open.ca/jobs/ab-gra ... -ektme.php

A frantic attempt by his wife, posted on June 19, 2014, just before the school year ended, to find a live-in nanny to take care of their daughter over the summer.

I'm disappointed in you Eddie! So why weren't you available for trial?

[notorial dissent]

At a guess, a last vacation before he begins his all expense paid tour of HM prisons????? Just a WAG.

[Burnaby49]

It was Christmas in prison and the food was real good
We has turkey and pistols carved out of wood
I dream of her always even when I don't dream
Her name's on my tongue and her blood's in my stream

The search light in the big yard turns 'round with the gun
And spotlights the snowflakes like the dust in the sun
It's Christmas in prison there'll be music tonight
I'll probably get homesick, I love you, Good night

John Prine 1973

Why such melancholy thoughts in this festive season? Because Siggy is going to be spending his Christmas and ringing in the new year in the Big House. His application for Judicial Interim Release pending his appeal being heard was just turned down by the Court of Appeal of Alberta.

There is a three part test for interim release pending appeal. The appeal can't be frivolous, there is no risk of the appellant not surrendering himself, and there is no public interest in retaining him in custody. The Crown opposed release on the basis that the appeal was frivolous, or at least very weak, because no grounds of appeal were disclosed which might be successful. The Appeal Court's review of the merits of Siggy's appeal should give him a grim foreboding of what to expect when it is finally heard. This is one big lump of coal in his stocking!

[6] The first eight grounds of appeal allege errors in the trial judge’s interpretation and application of the Charter, as reflected in the voir dire ruling R. v Siggelkow, 2014 ABQB 101. That 169 page judgment analyzes in detail a number of pretrial Charter arguments made by the applicant seeking: a stay for abuse of process, further disclosure, exclusion of evidence obtained from two search warrants, dismissal of charges due to a lack of jurisdiction in the Court of Queen’s Bench, and a stay based on trial delay. As the Crown pointed out, the Notice of Appeal baldly asserts “error” in these findings, without giving any particulars of the errors. No error is apparent on the face of the reasons. No reference is made to any portion of the decision to illustrate the errors, nor are any authorities cited which substantiate the existence of the error. Overlapping arguments have been rejected on appeal: Siggelkow v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ABCA 388, 2014 DTC 5008. In order to meet the test for interim release, the applicant must go beyond merely naming a ground of appeal conceptually known to law; some air of reality must be shown linking the grounds of appeal with the particular conviction: McNaughton at para. 12(c) and (d).

[7] The 9th and 10th grounds of appeal are that the applicant should have been provided with state funded counsel, and that the trial judge did not provide him with adequate procedural assistance. No particulars are given of the latter ground of appeal, and there is no indication of how it undermined the fairness of the trial.

[8] . . . . . . . . .

The applicant now asserts, without details, that his “lack of legal knowledge prevented him from making any substantive oral submissions” on the Charter application. He asserts that the Rain application was wrongly dismissed. Again, merely asserting a ground of appeal known to law is not sufficient, unless there is some indication that it might have affected the outcome of the trial. His bald assertions are directly contradicted by the reasons of the trial judge, and no indication is given of any palpable and overriding error.

[9] The 11th ground of appeal is that the trial judge failed to charge the jury on the effect that his “unrecorded expenses” had on the issue of evasion. This issue was not raised at the trial, and no evidence with respect to it was placed before the jury. This ground of appeal is insufficient to justify interim release.

[10] The 12th ground of appeal is that the applicant should not have been convicted because he was merely exercising his right of free expression, as a form of protest against the tax system. It is submitted that the trial judge should have charged the jury that “the political nature of his activities mitigated any ‘unjustified risk’” to others. The law is clear that being a “tax protester” is not a defence to these charges: R. v Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 at paras. 23-5, 93 OR (3d) 81. This argument is “frivolous” within the meaning of s. 679(3).

Siggelkow actually seems to think that the fact he was convicted was, in itself, sufficient grounds for an appeal without any further basis. No court would convict him without judicial bias forcing the result;

[11] The 13th ground of appeal is that the trial judge evidenced bias because of comments he made after the jury returned a guilty verdict, and before the sentencing hearing. After the jury returned its verdict, the trial judge advised the applicant to be prepared to speak to sentence the next day, and told him that he could raise any mitigating circumstances he wanted. When court reconvened the next morning, the applicant applied for an adjournment so that he could retain counsel to speak to sentence. During those proceedings, the applicant stated that he was astounded that he had been convicted. In that context, the trial judge expressed his frank opinion that the conviction was inevitable, and made two specific remarks to which the applicant objects:

At the end of the day, I appreciate you have a constitutional right to defend yourself, but this actually is like a waste of time. This is like a slam dunk.

You’re wasting valuable court resources running this sort of stuff. You have no defence.

It is worth noting that these comments, while perhaps untempered, are substantively accurate, and consistent with the jury’s verdict. They acknowledge the applicant’s right to a trial. The entire pseudo-legal arguments behind the “natural person” theory are indeed “no defence”: Gingras and Porisky at para. 68, Klundert at para. 19. The argument that these post-conviction comments would create a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a reasonable objective observer does not have sufficient merit to want release pending appeal of the conviction.

Imagine, a trial judge saying, after the conviction, that the case was hopeless. Straight up judicial bias, the fix was in! The Appeals Court judge also had concerns that if Siggy was let out on bail pending the appeal being heard he would just let things slide;

[14] The state of readiness of the appeal is relevant to whether release is appropriate in the public interest: McNaughton at para. 12(k). The diligent prosecution of the appeal is an express or implied condition of any order for interim release. If the release of the appellant causes the appeal to lose momentum, it will undermine public confidence in the process. If appeals languish on the lists in unperfected form for months, the Crown is eventually compelled to bring applications to revoke bail, or to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. This is an inappropriate state of affairs.

[16] In this appeal the transcripts of the two week jury trial have not yet been ordered, and the applicant has no fixed plans to order them. He asserts that he has no money to order the transcripts, which raises concerns about whether the appeal will be diligently prosecuted. The applicant has maintained throughout these proceedings that he is impecunious. He has, however, been able to raise money when he finds it advantageous: for example, to retain counsel to speak to sentence, and to retain different counsel to speak to judicial interim release. The Crown proposed that the applicant be required to stay within Alberta if his release was ordered. The applicant argued that this condition was inappropriate, because he has relatives in Saskatchewan, Houston, and British Columbia that he might visit. He indicates that there will be a family reunion in Oregon in the summer that he might wish to attend. He also might wish to visit his in-laws in the Philippines. No explanation is offered as to why he has funds for discretionary travel, but not funds to pay for the transcripts.

[17] Until further assurances can be given that the applicant has a realistic plan to diligently prosecute the appeal, judicial interim release would be premature.

However, as John Prine sings, He'll at least get turkey.


http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb_new/ ... ca0450.pdf

[Burnaby49]

Two of Siggie's cases I've discussed here have made it to CANLII, Canada's massive database of court decisions;

R v Siggelkow, 2014 ABQB 101
http://canlii.ca/t/gkglx

R v Siggelkow, 2014 ABQB 368
http://canlii.ca/t/gkglw