Since then Porisky's totally inane tax evasion scheme has blown up to become one of the largest evasion schemes we've had in Canada and it is still very much a live issue. I just posted the Edwin Sigglekow decision, Denise Eddie is still in play, and there are at least two Porisky based tax evasion trials, one a promoter, coming up here in Vancouver in the new year.
First the cases, in no particular order apart from putting Porisky first, with the names of the individuals involved in the discussion, a brief explanation of the case, and the link to the discussion. After the case listing I've included an analysis of the Porisky scheme.
Cases
The infection is heading north!
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7827
Individuals
Chandler Turnnir (AKA Chandler R. Turnir, Chandler Turner and Peter Turner)
Russell Porisky
Elaine Gould
Eva Sydel
This was the first discussion I started in Quatloos and it shows. No discipline or organization at all. I haphazardly buried three separate Porisky-based tax evasion convictions, including Porisky himself, in the text without putting either their names or "Porisky" in the title. Time to rectify.
The discussion initially focused on Chandler Turnnir (AKA Chandler R. Turnir, Chandler Turner and Peter Turner). He followed Porisky's teachings explicitly and, at his tax evasion trial, just parroted them back to the judge. He was given an eighteen month conditional sentence and a fine of 100% of the taxes evaded. I even neglected to give citations for his tax evasion and sentencing trials in the discussion so here they are now;
Trial - R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460 (CanLII)
Sentencing - R. v. Turnnir, 2007 BCPC 118 (CanLII)
The second case was Russell Porisky, the Man himself and the author of this whole sordid mess. He and his wife were nailed for tax evasion and he was given a four year sentence. This was quashed on appeal and a new trial ordered on the basis that he had not been given the option of a jury trial. That is still pending.
While I gave links to his tax evasion trial decisions they are now dead so I'll give citations which can be used to find the cases at
http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html
Reasons for Judgment - R. v. Porisky & Gould 2012 BCSC 67 (CanLII)
Sentencing - R. v. Porisky 2012 BCSC 771 (CanLII)
Granted Re-trial on appeal -R. v. Gould, 2014 BCCA 146 (CanLII)
The third case was Eva Sydel, a true believer and yet another dentist. She essentially ruined her life in her unbalanced obsessive quest for vindication. CanLII lists eleven citations for her, all related to her conviction for tax evasion and her subsequent attempts to make Canada pay for the injustice she suffered (she demanded $300,000,000 in damages and a court declaration that the Income Tax Act was invalid). She even filed a an action at the Federal Court of Canada trying to make them order the Supreme Court to take her case.
Reasons for Judgment on her tax evasion charges - R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346
For anyone interested in the other 10 cases go to the link below and type "Sydel" in the search line;
http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html
Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10485
Individuals
Russel Porisky
Elaine Gould
This discussion, a work in progress, will give some of Porisky's past history as a tax guru including his cases to date. Porisky and Gould were tried at the Supreme Court of British Columbia between January 27th and February 12th 2016. Porisky was convicted of income tax evasion, goods and services tax evasion, and couselling income tax evasion. Gould was convicted of income tax evasion.
They were sentenced on July 25, 2016;
Elaine Gould - Six months for tax evasion. In addition the minimum fine of 100% of income tax and GST evaded. This was $38,141. Gould was given credit for the six months she'd served on her original 2012 convictions. So she was sentenced to one day in jail to be served immediately.
Russell Porisky - He was given an eighteen month jail sentence for income tax evasion and a four year jail sentence for counseling income tax and GST evasion. Sentences to be consecutive. He was given credit for 404 days already served. In addition he was fined the minimum 100% of income tax and GST evaded of $193,333. He was also required to give a DNA sample.
Michael Millar - Detaxer & Poriskyite's tax evasion trial
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10834
Individuals
Michael Millar
On October 11, 2016 Millar was convicted of income tax evasion, GST evasion, and counseling fraud. On March 11, 2017 Millar was sentenced to six months jail sentence for tax evasion and a two year jail sentence for counseling fraud. Sentences to be consecutive for a total of two and a half years. he was also sentenced to the minimum fine of 100% of taxes and GST evaded. This was about $25,000. Appeals of his convictions are still pending as of July 2017.
They make 'em dumb in Canada too
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=5876
Individuals
Jack Klundert
Rosalie Chobotar
Jack Klundert, a chiropractor. The decision doesn't mention Porisky by name but Klundert followed Porisky's "natural person" scheme.
This discussion also has another apparent Porisky follower buried in it. Rosalie Chobotar was found guilty of income tax evasion and given a fine and a six month jail sentence. The available information doesn't state specifically that she was a Porisky adherent however the judge stated that she claimed to be "a natural person not subject to tax obligation".
She didn't get the jail term just because of the tax conviction. The Crown had asked for a conditional sentence of time served in the community and a fine of 100 per cent of the amount of income tax evaded. However her behaviour in court had been so offensive that the judge didn't believe that she would abide by any conditions he set. So he sent her to jail where she would have no choice but to serve out the sentence as imposed.
Frank Bertucci - Another Freeman Tax Court Failure
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10163
Individuals
Frank Bertucci
Porisky isn't mentioned in this decision. This is not a criminal case, just a civil Tax Court hearing. However Bertucci argued the natural person defense;
"It appeared to me that the essence of his argument was that the definition of “person” in the ITA did not clearly state that it applied to him as a “human being, a private individual” and an independent contractor."
Carl Gustafson - Poriskyite Engineer
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9631
Allan James: Curle - A New Dean Clifford Arising?
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10060
Individuals
Carl Gustafson
Allan Curle
Bruce Johnson
This tax evasion case involved three Poriskyites, Carl Gustafson, Allan Curle, and Bruce Johnson. Gustafson took the sensible route and pled guilty before trial and avoided jail time. Curle (apparently a Freeman True Believer) and Johnson were convicted after a trial and were given jail sentences. This was noted in the Carl Gustafson discussion. There is a separate discussion on Curle to cover any future adventures he may have. Gustafson dropped his Poriskyite/Freeman ways after his sentencing and voluntarily testified for the Crown in a number of Poriskyite prosecutions including Keith Lawson in Vancouver.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8223
The McCarties - Poriskyites and "Operation Fable"
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9390
Individuals
Colin McCartie
Anne McCartie
This discussion title is an excellent example of why this compilation is necessary. It was originally titled "The CRA has an Operation Fable?" That title did not give the names of the subjects, did not identify this as a Porisky discussion, and gave no idea of the real topic. My bad. So, as part of a clean-up of titles, I've changed this one. Colin and Anne McCartie were spouses charged with tax evasion for following Porisky's scheme although they denied being aware of Porisky. As of this writing (September 2015) their trial has not yet been scheduled. However they have successfully convinced the court to exclude from the trial all evidence gained under a search warrant. Apparently this was much of the evidence that the Crown was planning to rely on at trial.
Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9899
Individuals
Denise Eddy
Denise Eddy is a rock solid Porisky adherent. She is charges with both tax evasion and counseling tax evasion as a Porisky/Paradigm educator. She has been fighting incessant meritless holding actions hoping either to get off without a trial or to bog the Crown down to the point it stops action against her. Neither is going to happen. Denise is a unique individual and the discussion is very entertaining.
On February 04, 2016 Denise pled guilty and was sentenced to three charges;
tax evasion - 100% fine
GST evasion - 100% fine
counselling fraud (Poriskyism!) - 2 years less a day conditional sentence
Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9396
Individuals
Warren Fischer
Fischer employed a Poriskyite argument amongst other defenses. Convicted of tax evasion with a jail sentence.
Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10464
Individual
Richard Cory Stanchfield
Stanchfield pled guilty to income tax evasion and counselling fraud in respect to his activities as a Paradigm educator. On November 23, 2015 he was given a 14 month conditional sentence for counselling and a fine for taxes evaded.
Edwin Siggelkow - Porisky Detaxer
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9894
Individuals
Edwin Siggelkow
Convicted of tax evasion, received fine and jail term. Apart from using Porisky as justification for his own tax evasion Sigglekow was also a promoter of Porisky's scheme.
Donald Baudais - Poriskyite tax evader gets six months
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10245&p=177767#p177767
Individuals
Donald Baudais
Another Paradigm promoter who was sentenced to a fine and jail term for tax evasion. He is linked to Sigglekow (above). Prior to his trial Baudais tried, and failed, to have the charges thrown out for a number of reasons, one of which was that he should not face a criminal trial because the proper venue to review his tax issues was the Tax Court of Canada, which hears only civil matters. In denying that argument the judge referred to a prior Sigglekow hearing where he also tried, and failed, exactly the same argument. The judge noted that Sigglekow personally attended Baudais hearing to advise him.
Christian Lachapelle
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10019
Individuals
Christian Lachapelle
Apparently a Porisky scam promoter who helped almost a hundred individuals avoid or try to avoid paying nearly $2 million in income tax. He was charged with tax fraud in May 2014. The activities for which he was charged were alleged to have occurred between June 2007 and February 2011 inclusively in a scheme that made a distinction between a "natural" person and a "legal" person.
Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9275
Individuals
Jerry McCaw
Gerald Blerot
This discussion was posted by by Hilfskreuzer Möwe so there is no need, unlike my own discussion postings, to correct for confused explanations and missing citations.
Jerry McCaw was found guilty of tax evasion of $114,924 from 2006 to 2008. His company, Jake's Oilfield Construction Ltd., was found guilty of assisting him. The The Canadian Revenue Agency discovered that McCaw had acting according to what he learned from the Paradigm Education Group.
The court noted that McCaw was advised on the "natural persons" scheme by Gerald Blerot, a Paradigm Education group educator. McCaw paid $595 per month for his services.
In 2014 Gerald Blerot was was convicted in Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench of tax evasion on $275,000 of unreported income and counselling others to evade taxes and given a jail sentence three years and nine months. The latter conviction related to his role as a Porisky/Paradigm Education promoter.
Another Poriskyite loser, in French!
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9981
Individuals
Christian Gerard
This was not a tax evasion case, It was a civil Tax Court of Canada hearing for Christian Gerard. I said in the discussion;
"At least I assume we are dealing with a Poriskyite. His tactic was basically throw every damn thing at the Tax Court of Canada and hope some of it struck home. Sadly all misses. He has Porisky's natural man v corporate man argument but he also has a lot of Freeman gibberish. On top of it all he lards on an argument that he is a native Indian exempt from tax although he is not, in fact, aboriginal and native Indians are except from tax only if they earn their income on a reserve which he does not."
It is difficult to be certain what this decision says because it is in French and translated by Google translator. One comment by the judge indicated a Porisky viewpoint;
22] His thesis is that we should make a distinction, for tax purposes that concern us here, between the legal person and the human being . . . .
Oh, Canada
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=5828
Individuals
Michael kion
Petra kion
Michael Kion and Petra Kion pro-actively embraced the natural person argument to avoid paying tax. They notified the Minister of National Revenue that they were declaring themselves ‘natural persons’ and made demands on the Minister to relieve them of any further liability for tax. Their contention was that each human being comprised both a physical being (the ‘natural person’) and a legal entity created by the government issuing a social insurance number to the individual. Any income earned by the individual was attributed to the natural person while the obligation to pay tax rested with the legal person. The Minister responded to this by warning them of the risks of following misleading tax advice. The Kions stopped keeping books and records for their partnership and advised the Minister that the partnership had stopped business.
They were reassessed and the Tax Court of Canada dismissed their appeal to be exempt from tax as natural persons and agreed that the gross negligence penalty imposed on them was appropriate. The judge commented that;
As always I neglected to give citations. They had two separate Tax Court hearings arguing their nonsense, both appeals dismissed.Like others of their ilk, though opposed to paying taxes themselves, the Kions had no compunction about wasting the tax dollars of their fellow Canadians by failing to comply with their obligations under the law and prosecuting nonsensical claims at the administrative level and in the judicial system. Nor did their philosophical underpinnings prevent them from pocketing amounts received for the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Tax Credit.
Kion v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 516
Kion v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 447
More Poriskyites bite the dust!
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8317
Individuals
Douglas Amell
Robert Amell
Heidi Keyzer
This discussion covered the and conviction of three related Poriskyites, Robert Amell, his son Douglas Amell, and Heidi Keyzer, Douglas Amell's common law wife. Douglas Amell was sentenced to 16 months in prison and was ordered to pay a fine of 100% of the amount evaded. Heidi Keyzer was sentenced to a term of five months imprisonment while Robert Amell was sentenced to a term of three months, and both were ordered to pay fines in the amount of 100% of the tax evaded.
Douglas was a naturopathic practitioner who owned the Moose Jaw Naturopathic Clinic Inc. His wife and father worked at the clinic. In September 2003 the defendants executed a “contract for hire, independent agent agreement” with the company and the clinic ceased remitting source deductions for the defendants including income tax. The defendants argued at trial that all of the sums that they received, directly or indirectly from the company thereafter, were not taxable income in their hands. They arrived at that conclusion as a result of Douglas attending a seminar on by Russell Porisky of the Paradigm Education Group. This convinced them that they could receive income tax free as "natural persons. The individuals then stopped reporting income from the clinic. However, as the court indignantly noted, this did not stop them from falsely claiming government benefits. As an example while Heidi Keyzer was ineligible to receive any Child Tax Benefit or rebate during 2003 to 2006, because her actual income was too high she applied for, and received, $15,303.44 in Child Tax Benefits in this period by filing false or inaccurate tax returns.
The court concluded that the Paradigm materials and the teachings of Mr. Porisky had no credibility and that Porisky and Paradigm were nothing more than “snake oil salesmen”. The accused had no interest in receiving legitimate legal and financial or accounting advice. They followed Porisky's opinions because it gave them justification to evade tax.
Citation: 2010 SKPC 107
Porisky Strikes Again!
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8968
Individuals
Tanya Kovaluk
Lee Williams
Tania Kovaluk, an Ontario dentist, and her husband, U.S. citizen Lee Williams were sentenced to 2.5 years and four years in prison, respectively for tax evasion and promoting tax evasion through the use of Porisky's scam (decision unreported). They ran at least 16 Paradigm seminars in Toronto and Ottawa. Students, many of them dentists, paid 7% to 10% of the tax they evaded to Williams who forwarded a percentage Porisky. The court estimated that Williams helped others defraud the government of $4.5-million between 2003 and 2008 while Kovaluk also failed to report $2.6-million in income earned from her dental practice.
Canadian tax evaders caught in the Matrix!
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9055#p151999
Individuals
Clark Webster
Mary Margaret Webster
Clarke and Mary Margaret Webster, a dentist and his wife, pled guilty to tax evasion. The linked newspaper article stated that they believed that taxes were unconstitutional and that the federal government created a parallel legal system based on the movie The Matrix that allowed them to opt out of paying tax. They were aided in cheating on their taxes by Lee Williams, the subject of the "Porisky Strikes Again" discussion. They paid Williams $31,200 for teaching them how to totally screw their lives up just before retirement. Since they pled guilty and saved the Crown a trial they avoided jail time and received the minimum allowable fine of 100% of taxes owing.
Keith David Lawson - Poriskyite Tax Evader
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8223
Individuals
Keith Lawson
This was an application by the defendant and his wife to avoid trial on tax evasion charges by having the charges quashed on a number of grounds. He also demanded an order from the court which included, amongst other things, an order confirming that the Court recognized each of the Applicants as having the status of a private person, also known as a natural person, at common law for the purposes of the proceedings.
This was denied on the basis that it had no legal merit. There was is no basis for the recognition of any special status, There were no separate laws, rules, rights, remedies or procedures applicable to "natural persons" versus other individuals. The court ordered that the reference to "private person" following the applicants' names in the style of cause be struck.
The defendant admitted, of his own accord in an affidavit he provided to the Canada Revenue Agency that he had acted as a "Paradigm Educator" for Mr. Russell Porisky. The court understood this to mean that Mr. Lawson was of the view he did not have to report that money as income because he was a "natural person". The natural person theory was referred to in Mr. Lawson's supplemental written argument.
I buried the citation in the discussion text. It is;
Citation: 2012 BCSC 356
Lawson was tried on two counts of income tax evasion, one count of counseling tax evasion, and one count of failing to collect or remit GST. A jury found him guilty on all four counts on May 4, 2016. He was sentenced to Eighteen months imprisonment and a 100% fine on taxes evaded.
Dr. Leo Fung - The Poriskyite Who Wasn't There
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10477&p=184836#p184836
Individual
Leo Fung
Dr. Fung is a Vancouver dentist who, in the information submitted to obatain authorization for a search warrant, was accued of evading $860,000 of tax on $3.1 million in reported income. He was aquitted at trial in the Provincial Court of British Columbia.
Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747
Individual
Debbie Anderson
Trial to be held November 2015.
The Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme
I'll let the Canada Revenue Agency Explain it;
Apparently this brilliant loophole was thought up by Russell Porisky, a carpenter with a grade-school education. But he thought big! He started Paradigm Education Group, an outfit that gave seminar on his Natural Person/Legal Person bullshit. They advised people how to evade tax by using the Porisky method. Adherents would pay Porisky for his seminars and also a cut of whatever taxes they avoided. He expanded this by essentially allowing franchising, Individuals across Canada would give Porisky seminars under the Paradigm brand, collect fees from the suckers, and pay Porisky a cut. It was all sunshine and smiles until the Canada Revenue Agency started charging them all with criminal tax evasion.CRA NEWSWIRE
November 30, 2011
DON'T BUY INTO ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTER SCHEMES
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) warns all Canadians to beware of individuals that try to convince you that Canadians do not have to pay tax on the income they earn. These individuals, also known as tax protesters, not only fail to report their own earnings, but they also conspire, counsel, and promote these tax schemes.
Natural vs Legal Person
One of the most common false arguments tax protesters use is the natural vs. legal person argument, in which they treat themselves as two separate people for income tax purposes. They define the natural person as the individual that performs the labour required to earn income, and the legal person as the legal entity that the federal government creates through the issuance and use of the social insurance number (SIN). Tax protesters allege that the legal person has to file an income tax and benefit return, and that income received belongs to the natural person and is therefore not subject to Canadian income tax.
Canadian courts have repeatedly and consistently rejected all arguments made in these tax protester schemes.
Serious Consequences
For those involved in tax protester schemes, the CRA will reassess income tax and interest, and charge penalties. In some cases these individuals will be prosecuted for tax evasion. If convicted, they could face significant fines and possibly jail time.
For example, the courts fined an Ontario tax protester approximately $522,000, which represented 150% of the federal taxes evaded. In addition, the individual was given a one year conditional sentence, and was ordered to pay the fine imposed prior to the expiry of the conditional sentence; ordered to remain in Ontario and surrender his passport; and ordered to perform 180 hours of community service.
Correcting your tax affairs
Individuals who would like to correct their tax affairs can voluntarily come forward, and they may not be penalized or prosecuted if they make a valid disclosure before they become aware of any compliance action being taken by the CRA against them. These individuals may only have to pay the taxes owing, plus interest. More information on the Voluntary Disclosures Program can be found on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra.gc.ca/voluntarydisclosures.
The CRA reminds Canadians that, when it comes to their tax affairs, they should get independent advice from a reputable professional.
More information
More information on tax protester schemes is available at http://www.cra.gc.ca/alert under Tax Protesters.
Keep in mind that what they claimed to believe, while moronically stupid, was not, in itself, illegal. If a Porisky "Natural Person" had filed income tax returns reporting his gross income but showing a nil taxable income because the CRA had to go after the other guy, the "Legal Person", there would be no criminal offense because the income had been declared and the tax returns filed. They would have been reassessed to nail them for the taxes they should have paid and then, had they actually believed Porisky's fantasy, they could have gone to Tax Court to argue their position on its merits. This is why, in some of the cases cited above such as Christian Gerard (Another Poriskyite Loser, in French!), the individuals involved were heard in the Tax Court of Canada, a civil court, rather than facing criminal charges. They denied they owed taxes but did not actively engage in evasion.
However this alternative apparently didn't appeal to most of them so they decided to avoid the sticky question of what the CRA might think about the whole scheme by engaging in actual active tax evasion. The classic type, not filing tax returns, getting paid in cash, hiding income, not keeping books and records, what I would call standard bread and butter tax evasion. Where Porisky came in was when they were caught. Then their defense at trial wasn't that they were evading tax but that they were inquisitive searching minds just doing their best to determine their tax responsibilities to the government of Canada. At the end of their search they ran across an expert to guide them. The expert of course being Russell Porisky. The judge at Eva Sydel's evasion trial had some very pointed comments about her claim that it was reasonable to rely on a carpenter with no tax or accounting background for income tax advice. While some of these fools went to court actively fighting for this argument and other just used it to try and justify their actions they all of them lost. Judges tend to be an unsympathetic lot when people engage in criminal activity for the sole purpose of benefiting themselves. Some, like Carl Gustafson, threw themselves on the mercy of the court and got off with a conviction and a fine but no jail term. Others, particularly the promoters, ended up with jail terms.
Porisky himself was convicted of tax evasion and given a jail term (at this time he has appealed, had the conviction quashed, and is facing a re-trial). However his conviction was not for teaching the Paradigm nonsense but by evading tax on the income he got from it. He'd done well out of his scam, he grossed $1,127,185 on his scheme between 2004 and 2008.
His trial decision is R v, Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67. The judge had this to say about the legitimacy of Porisky's methods
4. Analysis – Did Mr. Porisky commit the act of tax evasion?
[57] When I express my opinion of Mr. Porisky’s argument and the Paradigm view – as I am about to do – I do not mean any disrespect to him. However, since he has taught this theory over many years and there have been several convictions of Paradigm students for following it, I think it is important to state the view of the Court in the clearest possible terms so that current and potential future students of Mr. Porisky know what they are or might be dealing with.
[58] Mr. Porisky’s theory not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense. It is a failed attempt at word magic and has no validity.
[59] The absurdity of the supposed distinction between a natural person and a non-natural person (and I do not mean to refer to a corporation here) was shown by several things that arose during the course of the trial.
[60] At the close of the Crown’s case I asked Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould whether they wished to call any evidence. Mr. Porisky said he could not make that decision unless he understood whether he was to give evidence in his “inherent personality as a natural person with no intent to profit”. He wanted to tell the truth in the stand but the capacity he was to testify in would make a difference to his evidence. A few minutes later in the dialogue he said:
I need to know if I make the decision to get into the stand, from which perspective can I speak? Like therefore I need to know, in the eyes of the law, if one man is two persons, the natural or the legal, okay, which one can I speak as, or does it matter -- am I have the liberty to speak the truth and qualify it so I can speak to everything? Because what it -- they have commingled a lot of stuff, and for me to properly address it, I'm going to have to be able to speak to everything to properly address it.
And later:
Again, I feel like I'm being railroaded because I'm asking for clear answers. I came here with a full intention on defending my -- my rights and -- and not having things being converted into something they're not, and I don't know how to do that if nobody's going to give me a straight answer. I thought Crown had a duty -- I read their web page and they talk about honour and integrity, and now I'm been led one thing -- and for me to speak to everything, I'm going to need to be able to speak to it from my starting point of my existence.
I didn't make it up. Sir John Salmond I think is a highly respected man. The Supreme Court relies on him. I didn't make it up that one man's two persons in the eyes of the law. And so from that perspective, I need -- that's why I tried to be as honourable and as open in the development of this, so that I could speak the truth and the whole truth from the proper perspective, so it does not get misconstrued or mislabelled or presumed to be something it's not. And that's what I need to know. If I make the decision and I go in that box, which person, in the eyes of the law am I?
THE COURT: You are Mr. Porisky.
THE ACCUSED PORISKY: Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign-granted personality?
THE COURT: You're Russell Porisky.
THE ACCUSED PORISKY: That's fairly misleading because that's not clear enough for me, Your Honour.
….
THE COURT: … Let's assume you get into the stand… and the Crown asks you, "What did you have for breakfast today?" Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?
THE ACCUSED PORISKY: For me, it would, Your Honour, yes.
[61] A final example will suffice. When asked by the Crown to confirm the identity of a Paradigm educator in the public gallery, Mr. Porisky said it depended on the capacity the Crown was asking about
[66] Also woven into the Paradigm view is the notion that benefits such as the Canada Pension Plan are not mandatory: because natural persons choose not to participate in any government benefit programmes, they are not subject to income tax. Apart from various programmes being mandatory, the flaw in that reasoning is that there is no linkage in the Income Tax Act between being eligible for the benefits and the obligation to pay income tax.
[67] Mr. Porisky’s analysis picks and chooses snippets from various statutes and cases, and attempts to create logical links where none exist. It is, in effect, legal numerology.
[68] In short, there is no legal merit to any of Mr. Porisky’s arguments.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!