Keith David Lawson - Poriskyite Tax Evader

[Burnaby49]

Sounds like a novel, may have to savor it for the weekend read

Medical emergencies! An attempt to get the court to make Burnaby49 put his real name on record so that I could be subpoenaed to testify for the defense! I testified (briefly) three times! Freeman craziness throughout! This case has everything.

[Burnaby49]

For some reason this discussion, even with the minimal content posted in it to date, has had way more viewings than the Russell Porisky discussion which includes his entire trial. Russell was the man who thought up, wrote up, and promoted the Paradigm tax evasion scheme, one of the biggest evasion schemes ever seen in Canada. He's the big dog and yet he languishes in obscurity. That's just not good enough people. Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person!

Back to a recap of Keith Lawson. He's an income tax evader and Paradigm educator who counseled income tax evasion. Here is the indictment;

http://www.mediafire.com/download/k884r ... ctment.pdf

Paraphrased, simplified, and stripped of legalese the charges were;

Count 1 - Keith David LAWSON (you'll be hearing a lot about capitalization) between April 15, 2002 and August 26,2010, counseled various persons to commit the indictable offense of fraud in excess of $5,000.

Count 2 - Keith David LAWSON between December 31, 2003 and May 1, 2009 willfully evaded or attempted to evade income taxes in the amount of $46,176 by failing to report his taxable income of $213,213 for the 2004 to 2008 taxation years.

Count 3 - Keith David LAWSON between April 27, 2009 and May 1, 2009 made, or participated, assented or acquiesced in the making of false or deceptive statements in his 2008 income tax return thereby understating his taxable income by $12,759.

Count 4 - Keith David LAWSON between June 30, 2005 and January 1, 2009 evaded or attempted to evade compliance with the Excise Tax Act by failing to collect or remit Goods and Services Tax (GST) of $12,223 on goods and services sold.

GST is a federal value added tax. I'm not going into detail but anyone who provides goods and services is supposed to collect it from the purchasers on behalf of the government. As I understand it is essentially the same as a sales tax. Anybody wanting a better understanding of it than I'm willing to provide can find it here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and ... x_(Canada)

You'll note that I called him an income tax evader and a tax fraud counselor. Jury went into deliberations at 2:50 this afternoon and he was convicted on all four charges at 9:10 this evening. Knock off an hour and a half for dinner and they deliberated about five hours. Almost exactly the same amount of time that the jury required to find Porisky and Gould guilty on their charges.

So, on with our tale. I'll be putting the dates of the individual hearings at the top of my posts and reporting them in chronological sequence.

A note on Crown counsel. There were two, the same two who handled Stanchfield and Porisky;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10464&p=216590
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10485

and are currently litigating Michael Millar and Debbie Anderson;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10834
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747

I've become fairly well acquainted with them and think they're great litigators but they must have seriously pissed somebody off in the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to have been saddled with this caseload.

They acted together in Lawson splitting duties so when I say that Crown Counsel argued this or stated that it could be either one of them. Lawson was unrepresented, a fact he pointed out over and over.

[Burnaby49]

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

This was just a routine pre-trial conference, a scheduling session to arrange a date for a hearing on something that Lawson wanted to discuss. However it went in an entirely unexpected direction. I had my very own personal publication ban imposed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia!

The session was scheduled for 45 minutes starting at 9:15. We had to be out by 10 because the courtroom was reserved for a jury trial scheduled to begin at that time. So things went somewhat sideways from the start when the court clerk couldn't find the judge. She showed up almost fifteen minutes late leaving us with a half-hour to get things done. Michael Millar was there sitting in the public seating with me. Millar and Lawson, along with Debbie Anderson, have a joint three day voir dire hearing scheduled next week in respect to evidence (As I'll explain in the next posting I attended that hearing but I cannot report it until, probably, the end of the year). When Lawson entered the court he told the judge that he was there as a private person and was participating under a continuing special appearance. So still full speed ahead on freeman defenses. The judge told him he could sit down but he declined and stood for the entire session. Probably some freeman belief about putting him under the jurisdiction of the court, a topic that turned out to be the reason we were here.

He's scheduled for a 20 day trial starting April 11. Crown wanted some time before trial set aside to consider jury instructions and explain the process to Lawson. Jury instructions were a big deal in the Porisky trial and turned out to be a big deal in this hearing too. Lawson wanted a special pre-trial session arranged for the court to consider an application he was planning to make showing that the judge had no jurisdiction over him because the Supreme Court of British Columbia really didn't exist and therefore there was no point to a trial. I'm guessing that this is Millar's idea. As I reported from an October 16, 2014 hearing of Millar that I attended;

His big point seemed to be that since he didn't agree to anything, and since the court has no jurisdiction over him, there was no reason to have a preliminary inquiry since he can't be convicted. So he wanted the judge to tell him how to do this (entering motions is how he put it). Judge asked Crown counsel if she knew what Millar was talking about. Millar, acting like he was addressing the simple-minded, said the jurisdiction had to be proven by the party making the claim. Judge - Claim? What do you mean claim? Millar said the Crown had to prove jurisdiction over him before things could proceed. By this point he was just babbling gibberish and neither the judge nor I could understand him. Judge advised him to get counsel. He then asked the judge to tell him what motion he should make to prove to the court that it had no jurisdiction over him so that he could stop the proceedings before a preliminary inquiry. Essentially Millar asked the judge to tell him how he could prove that the judge really wasn't a valid judge. Crown said they understood what he was getting at because they had lots of guidance on what Millar was doing from prior, similar cases. He also wanted the case tossed on constitutional issues but he didn't say specifically what issues he was arguing. Just the magic constitution incantation that makes problems melt away.

And, on December 9th, 2015;

Millar said he had some "substantive issues" that he wanted discussed up front before the trial proceeded because it was his position that after he had his say charges would be dropped. Judge asked him what he meant. He said his charges were unknown to law, a misrepresentation of the law. He wanted all the evidence thrown out for fraud. The court documents filed by the Crown were full of fraudulent statements. Wants it adjudicated and confirmed. Judge - What does that mean? You have been charged and will be tried. The dam broke with that and Millar was off on a torrent of Freeman craziness.

Whole proceedings a fraud on the court. The Supreme Court Act of British Columbia has the name of the court in mixed case but all of the documents filed by the Crown are in upper case. This is not the way the Act styles it.

Didn't do Master Gee any good and I assume the same will happen here. But this was only the start of the issues about case. The name and style of her Majesty in upper case on the Crown's documents means that she does not exist in law. He cited section 32 of the Federal Interpretation Act which, as far as I can tell, doesn't help him;

32. Where a form is prescribed, deviations from that form, not affecting the substance or calculated to mislead, do not invalidate the form used.

He said documents are invalidated in substance and form because of the case issue and are a nullity. He wanted a an order from the court of defining the "legal nature" of the plaintiff and defendant are because he doesn't know. Is the Crown acting against him as a private person? As the Michael Millar Trust? As the flesh and blood natural man? If the court doesn't do this the proceedings are a fraud.

This is the Master Gee I was referring to;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10342

From the very aptly named discussion "Master Gee is trying to evict Mr. And Mrs. Burnaby49!"

Anyhow the Crown said that Lawson was going to present "pseudo-legal arguments". Lawson rebutted that he'd sent Crown counsel correspondence yesterday proving that he was the subject of malicious prosecution and that the entire trial process was based on fraud. He wanted all of this discussed now so that the trial could be cancelled. Judge told him we weren't here to hear his application but to schedule a hearing for it. In any case there was as yet no application. Lawson planned to put it all in an affidavit but hadn't got around to doing it.

Lawson said that the only reason he was making a continuing special appearance here today was because of the jurisdictional issues regarding the court. He rambled on something about the Supreme Court Act;

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... g/96443_01

Not correctly delineating boundaries or something, he used the phrase "legislative context". He said that he couldn't find any evidence that the Vancouver-New Westminster judicial district actually existed in the legislation, which meant that the court he was currently arguing in didn't actually exist "There is not a lawful court under The Supreme Court Act". He'd put some "very simple questions" on this to the Crown counsel but they gave evasive non-answers which meant that they knew the court didn't exist but were not admitting it. Since the Crown has avoided the issue they were engaged in abuse of process. Can your Honour tell me what court we are in? Crown refuses to tell me. Judge said she wasn't going to discuss that now. Lawson said that he wanted the judge to direct the Crown to answer his questions. Judge declined. So he asked the judge "Do you have the answer?" She said she wasn't answering anything without checking the legislation. This was the same approach used by Millar in his December 09, 2015 hearing;

He also blamed the court itself for defrauding him because it also uses upper case for its name in some documents so he doesn't know what court he is in. Judge laughed "Really, you don't know where you are?" His response was that the correct style and form is primary to the process and if the court won't guarantee this then I don't know where I am. If the court refuses to do this then I question your integrity.

Lawson said that he was here under protest (what criminal defendant isn't?). Judge said they'd set two days to hear his jurisdictional arguments and the issues raised by Crown.

He questioned the point in holding next week's voir dire since the court didn't have any jurisdiction over him. Judge said it was too late to hear his jurisdictional arguments before the voir dire hearing so it would go ahead.

Then he wanted a copy of the Porisky charges to the jury. I commented fairly extensively on this issue here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10485&start=20#p222635

There are the instruction on law and other issues given to the jury by the judge. The jury can only rely on the law as stated by the judge, not from any other source. Of particular interest in the Porisky trial, and possibly what Lawson wants to review are the actual instructions covered by these comments I made;

- Then the killer blow. Mistake in law. Judge instructed that certain mistakes may negate a wilful evasion charge but persons holding a view of the law that believes that the income tax law does not apply to them is not a mistake. The theories presented in the Paradigm program cannot be used as a defence of mistake in law. I'd note that since Porisky made no defence at all he can't be assumed to have relied on either Paradigm or mistake in law.

- Judge stuck the knife in again. People can make mistakes however a mistake in law is not a defence, only a mistake about facts. What they believed about persons in the Income Tax Act and Contracts For Hire is irrelevant to determining guilt since these are not a defence to evasion.

I can see why judge and Crown so nitpicking about charges to jury. They are very detailed and the one thing that comes across is how they hem the jury in. They cut off possible defences and they require the jury accept certain things as fact. They also say that if the jury makes certain findings based on the evidence they must find P&G guilty.

However these was a problem about giving Lawson the instructions. In law the only valid instructions are the actual words said by the judge to the jury. The written instructions the Porisky jury was given are not the actual instructions that would be reviewed by an appeals court. They would review the transcript of the hearing to determine what was actually said. Crown counsel said Lawson couldn't be given that because there had been no request for a transcript so a copy of it didn't exist. The court registry said that it wouldn't give a transcript of just the jury instructions part of the hearing. So all that was available was the written copy. Judge explained to Lawson that she wanted to make it clear that the written instructions were not the actual instructions and may not match the judge's oral instruction. He didn't care, he wanted wanted the written instructions. So Crown gave a copy of that to the judge who passed it on to Lawson.

Then I was brought into the discussion. Lawson said that there was a person on court today recording the proceedings and was planning to publish them. Apparently the existing publication ban covered the trial and possibly the pending voir dire but not pre-trial application hearings such as this. Lawson said that allowing today's hearing to be published was not "helpful" and was prejudicial. So judge asked him if he wanted the ban to be extended to cover today's hearing. Yes. Crown counsel argued that the judge did not have the jurisdiction to extend the publication ban to a pre-trial conference where no evidence was entered into the record. Judge said that she would use her inherent jurisdiction to extend the ban to all hearings relating to Lawson's trial. So I was banned.

Not a big deal as far as I'm concerned, just a matter of timing. Once Lawson's jury gives a verdict the ban automatically ends. So I'll be attending his hearings and writing them up as I go but holding off on posting anything until the trial is done.

[Burnaby49]

Tuesday and Wednesday March 22/23

I'm just posting this to indicate a gap in my reporting to be filled in later. These two days were for the voir dire. I was there for the full session and it was a very interesting session indeed with Lawson an active participant. However all three defendants had statutory publication bans placed on their hearings. The bans allow pre-trial hearings to be published as long as evidence is not entered at the hearing. Evidence was entered in this one which meant that I can't post it until the last of the three trials is finished. As currently scheduled that would be Debbie Anderson who is slated for trial in October. As the judge at Lawson's trial explained to me today (May 4th) I can now post anything I want about Lawson except that single voir dire hearing. So my choice was to wait until the end of the year and post everything or do Lawson now excluding the voir dire which I'll post later when ban on it lifted. My write-up of the voir dire takes up sixteen single-spaced pages on Word so a lot to report when free to do so.

[Burnaby49]

Tuesday March 29, 2016

This was a difficult day to get through. A full court day of mind-numbing stupidity. So stupid and pointless that, at the end of the day, I did something I rarely do. I had a beer. OK, I hear it now, all of my readers calling bullshit on that. The way that sad pathetic drunk talks he never does anything but guzzle beer. True enough but, apart from home, say right now as I'm writing this, or when I'm travelling, I'm not a solitary drinker. I very rarely go to a pub by myself and have a beer. But I did at the end of this court day. I headed right over to The Moose, a short block away from the courthouse, and had a Honker's Ale. I desreved it. And, while I'm working on this entry, I'm having a Free Dollar saison brewed by Machine Ales at Callister brewing;

http://www.callisterbrewing.com/

Lawson spent the entire day yammering on and on about his grievances, complaints, and endless accusations against the criminal, malicious activities of the Crown that had so tainted his case that the only remedy that fundamental justice allowed was to throw out all of the charges against him. What had the perfidious Crown done? They'd styled the Supreme Court of British Columbia as the SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Those bastards!

This is an argument that he has lost in at least three prior hearings. It's like the Supreme Court of British Columbia has nothing else to do but let him have his own personal Groundhog Day over and over. Apparently res judicata doesn't exist for the SCBC. He'll lose this one too but why did we have to hear it in the first place?

I've been stalling on taking that first look at my notes but I may as well get started.

Court started with only Michael Millar, his wife, and me in the public seating. Huge courtroom. A jury room with 78 public seats, six rows which are, rather ominously thirteen seats across. The same judge that we couldn't find on March 16th. This session was for an application that Lawson made in respect to the court's jurisdiction. When we started the usual gibberish from Lawson. I'm a private person here on a conditional special appearance, Keith David, family name Lawson. Much of the day was spent with Lawson trying to get the judge to rule that he was actually a private person. Why? Because, in his terminology, a private person is also a natural person and the Porisky/Paradigm argument is that natural persons aren't taxable. Porisky, and his followers were convicted partly on the basis that the courts refuse to accept that natural persons exist for income tax purposes. So if Lawson and Millar managed to get the court to rule that they are natural/private persons then they open up a whole special status for themselves that they can argue as a matter of law at their trials.

The judge said that she had a five page amended unfiled notice of application from Lawson. Lawson had also files a huge pile of other material including what looked like a massive Book of Authority. This is a file with the cases you plan to rely on at a court hearing as precedence for your arguments. The trick is finding relevant precedences. A trick freemen have trouble mastering.

Lawson started first. I thought this was a two day hearing but turns out it is only one. Almost the first thing Lawson did in the last two hearings I attended was get me banned from reporting. This time he didn't bother.

He started by going on about what an inexperienced helpless unrepresented individual he was and how he needed massive amounts of help from the judge. He had a quote from a case. R. v Stevenson I think, that told him that the judge essentially had to act as his lawyer if he didn't have one. The case name is too generic for me to bother looking for it.

He said that the basis of his application was what he'd read and understood of the Constitution and the administration of justice. He wanted adherence to the last one by all parties. But the failures and irregularities of the process against him had gone too far. "A failure to answer the questions I'm going to ask is a proof of malicious intent, fraud and willful blindness by the persecution. I'm only pointing this out in support of moral and spiritual values and the rule of law. This is a simple issue and it shouldn't even have to be brought up".

'I have a simple question about the variations in the documents submitted. I'm the applicant, a private person. There should be no reason to obfuscate. I want the court to order the prosecution to answer if I'm a private person. If they refuse I want the court to make an order that I'm a private person."

"The British Columbia Supreme Court's authority is from the Supreme Court Act. There should be no reason to ask but is this the Supreme Court of British Columbia?" Apparently Lawson had sent the Crown a letter with three questions he wanted answered and they hadn't replied. So the first court order that should be made is that he is a private person being prosecuted in his private capacity.

He brought up purported examples where the law recognized that he was a private person. However he did not show any legislation supporting this argument but instead went to some publication by a law society that talked about natural persons.

He's very upset with the disrespect he's getting from the Crown because of their disparaging comments about his natural person arguments. "The Crown's response shows a lack of respect for me not in line with professional conduct". Then he pulled out the old freeman standby, old law dictionaries, something about individuals from the century before last. Then he said "A natural person is not something that a deranged person came up with so the Crown's disparagement of private and natural persons is offensive." While Lawson was going through this I wrote in the margin of my notebook "Lawson festering with resentment against lack of respect from the Crown." I should note at this point that this lack of respect and the Crown's failure to meet their required professional conduct seems to be based almost solely on the fact that they won't agree with him and hop to it when he demands they answer questions.

Then on to another freeman standby, masses and masses of irrelevant citations from statutes and legal dictionaries. On to Blackstone now. "There is no reason for you not to grant an order that I'm a private person. I want an order now before I continue. I want to know if the Crown objects to an order. This is fundamental so I want it now." Judge asked "You want the Crown to agree that you are a private person?" "Yes, private person or natural person. Yes, I want the Crown to admit that or you make an order." So judge asked Crown counsel for her views.

Crown - "All issues are intertwined but the basis of everything hinges on his status or capacity as a private person. This has been dealt with twice and there is no reason to reopen it again."

Sadly I have to report that, at this point, the Crown's arguments are nothing but gibberish. Not the actual arguments Crown made but but my notes of them. I have three lines covering the Crown's next point and all I can interpret from it is "Cited authority" in respect to something or another. No idea what I meant.

Anyhow Lawson popped up and said that he wanted to respond. He then went on again about his grievances against the Crown. "Is there evidence before the court that I'm not a private person?" Judge said "Good question." Lawson went on about fairness and fundamental justice not being met.

Back to Lawson's arguments again. "The next question I want to ask the Crown is this matter proceeding in the Vancouver - New Westminster judicial district and the county of Vancouver? A prior judge had said "As far as I can determine there is no authority for more than one Supreme Court in British Columbia." Then he was back to styling. Styling is more specific than just words it includes cases. The Canadian Styling Guide proves that the capitalization styling used is critical. Letters and style have meaning. The guide says that you capitalize only the first letters of proper nouns.

At some point he'd mentioned that the styling guide he was going on and on about was a government publication so I assume he means this;

https://books.google.ca/books/about/The ... sc=y&hl=en

It is a 312 page book covering all aspects of written styling and published by the Public Works and Government Services Translation Bureau. It is described as;

The revised edition of The Canadian Style is an indispensable language guide for editors, copywriters, students, teachers, lawyers, journalists, secretaries and business people – in fact, anyone writing in the English language in Canada today.

It provides concise, up-to-date answers to a host of questions on abbreviations, hyphenation, spelling, the use of capital letters, punctuation and frequently misused or confused words. It deals with letter, memo and report formats, notes, indexes and bibliographies, and geographical names.

If you are interested you can buy it on Amazon;

https://www.amazon.ca/Canadian-Public-G ... dian+Style

So, as I understand Lawson's (and Millar's) arguments, all documents that the Crown prepares for the court or for him must follow precisely all of the rules laid out in Canadian Style. Any error or deviation from perfect adherence to the guide, no matter how minor, constitutes grounds to quash the charges against him. Such errors are not accidental but are a deliberate fraud by the Crown and violate his right to fundamental justice. So if the rules on capitalization proposed by the guide are not followed by the Crown, say by heading a document THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA rather than The Supreme Court of British Columbia, then the name on the document does not match the guide's rules and therefore does not designate a valid court.

Back to Lawson. He gave a long review of the styling guide. It is used by churches, universities, courts of law. He cited that golden piece of legislation that would free him, Section 2 of the Supreme Court Act;

2(1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia".

Capitalizing the first letter of every word is a styling rule because it is a proper noun. Putting the name of the court in quotation marks must have been done for a reason so the Crown must use this styling exactly. Names have meanings. "I don't have a duty to know these things, I'm just one guy acting alone." Judge - "Are you saying that the name SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA is misleading on documents?" "Yes, the numerous examples in the filings show that the Crown is being evasive."

Then back to his list of questions that had to be answered by the Crown or put in a court order by the judge if he was to have justice. I'm not sure if I got the whole list.

1 - Private person
2 - Court name styling. Is this matter proceeding in the Supreme Court of British Columbia?
3 - Not a question. "Special Appearance is not something I made up." Chief Justice Cullen told me all about it.

Lawson is not a linear guy. More like a dog gnawing a bone. He stops for a while then starts gnawing at the same part again. Back yet again to styling and the judicial districts and judicial counties argument he's previously lost. He started citing from some 1936 book about some common law topic he said was worth discussing. He said he didn't intent to challenge the jurisdiction of the real Supreme Court of British Columbia but just this upper case court because upper case courts are not in the Supreme Court Act. "The Crown's documents state a place not known in law." Then the plaintive cry "I can't tell from the documents if this place is known in law!" Turns out that there is not a single document in all of the filings that defines the judicial district we are in because they are all in upper case and the Supreme Court Act uses mixed case.

"There is no reason for you to fail to make an order confirming that this proper name and styling is not in any of the Crown's documents. It's not fair that I have to assume that this is the correct court. My affidavit shows that I've suffered for years so I've already been prejudiced." Then, mercifully, morning break. All of the preceding was in just over an hour.

After break he went into the preliminary inquiry transcripts. This was a hearing that Lawson went to when his prosecution was shifted from the Provincial Court of British Columbia to the purported Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to set the matter down for trial before a Justice of the Superior Court. In practice the Inquiry is used to test the strength of the Crown's case.

The judge asked "Give me context, why is this relevant?" Jurisdiction, why else. The judge in the preliminary inquiry apparently changed the styling on the documents when Lawson demanded it and that proved his case. CANADA changed to Canada, PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA to Provincial Court of British Columbia. However when the case was transferred to the improperly Styled SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA the courts lost jurisdiction over him. The Smoking gun! The new documents in this court do not reflect the changes. Judge - "How does this advance your argument in this court?" Jurisdiction of course! Changes were brought up in provincial court and documents amended but Crown refuses to amend here. Apparently the provincial court changed his name to reflect his status as a private person but this court won't do it. I assume that he means that the provincial court used upper and lower case. Lawson showed a bunch of prescribed forms with all capitals in some of the wording of Canada and the Province of British Columbia. He ran through a laundry list of other claimed defects in the forms.

I've now done six of the fourteen pages of notes for the one day. Lawson was relentless in his overwhelming repetition. There's a lot more yet.

He pointed out where he was identified as Keith David Lawson in the City of Burnaby in the Province of British Columbia. Since the first letter of "city" was capitalized that meant the document referred to a corporation and this took him out of the jurisdiction of the court because the court only has jurisdiction over places. Back to style guide then;

Judge - "This is not the law. Not conforming to a style guide is not a mistake in law."

Lawson - "It gives the rules."

Judge - "These are not rules and there are no consequences to not following it. The style guide is not an enactment or legislation, it is just a guide. You are saying that it should have consequences to not following it but if this is in your argument show me your authority."

She might as well have been talking to the hummingbird feeder in my back yard. Lawson stopped for a moment, said OK or something similar, then said "I want an order that all of these mistakes be corrected. Page 78 of the style guide about geographic terms says "Do not capitalize city unless used in a corporate sense" so a city is not a place but a corporation."

Then a change of topic! Marginally. Not a new topic but first reference today. The Porisky search warrant. Sorry, not a change at all. Apparently the warrant used to authorize the Porisky search was not valid because the information in it made the styling guide unhappy. Something about Canada, British Columbia and the Pacific Region being styled wrong.

The Pacific Region was a new term at trial that Lawson professed to know nothing about. "I couldn't find a statutory reference to a judicial area called the Pacific Region." Burnaby49 knows all about the Pacific Region because he worked in it for over thirty years. It is just and administrative term used by the Canada Revenue Agency for British Columbia and the Yukon. The CRA has divided Canada up into semi-autonomous regions for administration purposes so I worked in the Vancouver Tax Service Office in the Pacific Region. There are various regions across the country, Prairie Region, Maritime Region. Each region has it's own separate administrative structure with a regional headquarters that reports to Ottawa. Since regions are just internal CRA administrative designations which have no statutory authority they are totally irrelevant to Lawson's argument. He didn't care because he had so much other evidence that would get his case quashed.

One of the auditors who had prepared, or helped prepare, the warrant had stated on it that he (the auditor) lived in the City of Surrey in the Province of British Columbia. Did he live in a corporation or a place? The style guide says that he lives in a corporation. Places are essential to the court's jurisdiction and I can't find any in the documents. Then back to other glaring defects in the search warrant. Apparently Canada had been styled as C A N A D A, PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (spaces in original). It was clear that the warrant had failed to meet the rules of the styling guide and was therefore invalid. But the preliminary inquiry wouldn't address the issue.

He mentioned some provision of law that court jurisdiction is lost if prescribed forms aren't followed correctly. He'd read it somewhere but, very unfortunately, he didn't remember where. Absolute proof that he's right and he just lost track of it. "Check out the forms judge, there is no consistency. Why didn't the Crown follow the styling guide?" He knew the answer to that question; the failure was motivated by fraud and malicious intent on the part of Crown counsel! Then another issue that required that charges be quashed. The Court seal affixed on some documents by the registrar did not fit the requirements of section 7 of the Supreme Court Act. Section 7 says;

7 (1) The court must have a seal bearing Her Majesty's Royal Arms and the name "Supreme Court of British Columbia" and other words the Attorney General considers necessary.
(2) The seal is to be used by the court as the occasion requires.

(3) A print of the seal stamped on a document requiring a seal of the court is, for all purposes, deemed to be an impression of the seal of the court.

We all know where this is going.

Judge asked "Are you arguing that the seal is invalid because it is all in upper case?" Yes. Then a ten minute laundry-list of capitalization defects in the forms and documents going back years. "If this isn't fraudulent why did the Crown do it? Only the Crown can answer. I'm not willing to accept a fraudulent change of jurisdiction, the guide was ignored on purpose. I can't understand the meaning of the words in the documents. Are these real places or are the names concealed? Concealment is a hallmark of fraud!"

Then on to how the Canadian Armed Forces name vessels and military exercises. Apparently they use full capitalization but since this court isn't military the proceedings are fraudulent. (I have no idea what he meant by that and he didn't expand on it). Then he said that section 25(1) of the Criminal Code covers private persons. My notes say that at this point Lawson was just babbling about fraud and malicious actions so we'll break for 25(1). This is what it says;

Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law

· 25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
·
o (a) as a private person,
o (b) as a peace officer or public officer,
o (c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
o (d) by virtue of his office,
o
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Now I'd agree that it uses the words "private person" but the context has nothing to do with Lawson. Not that that matters to him. He's in love with masses of paper. Volume gives credibility.

He also said that the Criminal Code uses the words "Territorial Division" in respect to jurisdiction but the term Territorial Division is not in any of the forms.

Judge - Does the Supreme Court Act use Territorial Division?

Lawson - No, it only uses Jurisdictional Divisions.

Judge - The words are a term of art to be applied province by province as they wish. There is context in wording. If the Supreme Court Act used "Territorial Division" then it is relevant.

Lawson - No, that's my point! The Criminal Code uses it but British Columbia doesn't.

As I said, it was like talking to my bird feeder. Anyhow, finally, lunchtime.

After lunch judge said that if we need more time we can use part of Friday (today Tuesday). Apparently there is a scheduled pre-trial conference and part of that day could be used to conclude this hearing. Happily I won't be there, a dental appointment Friday Morning. So judge asked Lawson if he needed more time. "Don't know, haven't thought about it." Given his performance today, with about 95% repetition, he could fill any time slot allotted. Anyhow he and judge agreed to see how it went this afternoon

Back to Criminal Code provisions. "If we are assured that this is the correct court then the case can go to trial (a generous concession on his part) but there are still issues of failure to properly state a place, and misleading style to conceal that provisions of the Criminal Court are not met." Then yet more going through documents, seemingly at random by just rummaging through the pile in front of him, pointing out capitalization issues that showed that his right to justice hadn't been met.

He said that he was the "person who, on the face of it, appeared to be the defendant in the preliminary inquiry but is not the same defendant in this court." This is based on the Provincial court styling his name in mixed case while this court used all capitals. I stopped writing for a while because the styling issues obsessing him seemed to be never-ending and all repetition.

He said, after another interminable ramble through the styling guide, that he wants his indictment to be declared invalid and a nullity. Public respect for the legal system and the rule of law is very important and he, as a Canadian citizen, is in favour of these concepts. The violations of section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act make these proceeding ultra vires so outside of the rule of law. The derogatory improper conduct by the Crown also requires the case be dropped. He brought out the duties of the prosecution from some unidentified documents and said that the defects he'd exposed showed that the Crown wasn't meeting their obligation. Then a sad story about how he was self-represented because he couldn't find a lawyer because they all bailed on him when they heard th details of his case. Judge -"No need to talk about past lawyers."

"The Crown should clearly tell me if I am a person in a private capacity. The Crown is required to give me a yes or not to my questions about jurisdiction. The failures, delays, and refusal of the Crown to do this have resulted in this application."

"The documents filed by the Crown are an abuse of process. The Crown thinks that all of my arguments have no merit. Crown is not being honest." Then he asked the judge to rummage through his application to see if she could find any other arguments in it for him that he hadn't found himself. Judge - "It is not the role of the court to find charter arguments for you. If you've identified a charter breach I'll hear it but I'm not going to create charter arguments on your behalf."

Then, back again, to the Porisky search. There were obvious defects between the search forms (information and warrant) so it was not a lawful search and you should disallow the evidence from it.. Judge said - "I can't do it. I have no jurisdiction over the Porisky and Gould search." So Lawson said fine, don't comment on the search warrant itself but bar the documents obtained from it (as I said, a very long day which was just getting stupider and stupider). Then he moved on to the search warrant that authorized the search of his own house. "My warrant has violations of the Criminal Code because it was not styled as a prescribed form. The styling did not meet the principles of fundamental justice." Then, unbelievably, he was done and break.

But before we took the afternoon break Crown counsel wanted to make a point. Justice Brown has already decided on issue of admissibility of evidence in the Porisky search. Justice Brown ruled in R v Anderson that Porisky search couldn't be argued and that, in the first Porisky trial, the search was found to be OK.

The Anderson case cited by the Crown is;

R. v. Anderson, 2014 BCSC 2002
http://canlii.ca/t/gkkbp

Which I have written up in considerable detail here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747

Break over and Crown's turn. They demolished Lawson in about fifteen minutes. Essentially a slice and dice disembowelment. Crown counsel said she had provided written submission and she would only talk about the highlights so she was cautiously optimistic that we would finish. (we had less than an hour left). "It is the Crown's submission that today's application is the same as the two applications already heard by this court."

First the Crown cruelly used one of Lawson's own losses against him by citing one of his own cases;

R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356
http://canlii.ca/t/fqhb6

In which, in paragraph 9, "Justice Myers dealt with the capitalization issue and literary style. There is of course no legal argument supporting Mr. Lawson's position." Paragraph 10 covered the geographic location argument. "While current issue is not exactly the same it is still based on the capitalization reasons of Justice Myers." It is clear that we are dealing with a location not a corporation. Paragraph 12 takes a "dim view" of attempts to quash indictments on technical grounds. Paragraph 25 covers repetition. Lawson sought a declaration, the same as today, on the name styling of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. "The court said that there was "no doubt" that this was the Supreme court of British Columbia (as did Justice Brown last week) and that is just as applicable today." "Paragraph 29 says that there is no recognition of special status for "private persons" and the phrase "private person" was struck in the cause of style."

These are the cited paragraphs;

I. The informations and summonses

[8] Mr. Lawson advances both substantive and formal objections to the informations and summonses.

A. The formal objections

[9] The first formal objection I will deal with is: “a failure to properly identify either of the Applicants by his or her proper name in any of the counts or offences alleged therein.” This is so, Mr. Lawson argued, because his and his wife’s last name are capitalized in the informations and summonses. He cites a literary style guide in support of his argument. There is, of course, no legal requirement as to the capitalization of names in informations, summonses or other court documents. The accused are clearly and properly identified. Style guides are not legal authority, nor are they written as such.

[10] A second formal objection is: “… failure to state the geographic location where each of the alleged offences occurred.” In Mr. Lawson’s supplemental argument he states:
In the Information, neither of the terms “City of Burnaby,” and “Province of British Columbia” expresses a geographic location; i.e. a place, where the alleged offences were committed. The Canadian Style guide's rules for the style of geographical terms, in section 4.21(c), shows that those words are not a location, but are used in a corporate sense.

At the hearing, Mr. Lawson added that he was not a shareholder of Burnaby.

[11] I do not agree with this argument. In their context, the words clearly denote geographic locations.

[12] Furthermore, the courts have taken a dim view of applications to quash informations, summonses and indictments on formal or technical grounds. As Tim Quigley states in Procedure in Canadian Law, 2d ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2005) at p. 17-2:

[T]he Criminal Code has long sought to reduce the potential for technical defects to halt proceedings and, in recent years, the judiciary has increasingly stressed this aim. There is a marked preference for amending faulty informations and indictments, rather than to quash them, especially after the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Moore [(1998), 1988 CanLII 43 (SCC), 65 C.R. (3d) 1].
...
The position now is that only an indictment or information that discloses no offence known to law or is so badly drafted that it fails to provide notice of the offence charged will be quashed and then only if it cannot be amended.

[25] The first order sought is a declaration:

… that the court which will hear this application is the same Honorable Court having the name and style "Supreme Court of British Columbia" (the "Court"), as continued by s.2(1) of the Supreme Court Act, (R.S.B.C., 1996);

[28] There is no doubt that this is the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and no issue has been raised with respect to this Court’s constitution or jurisdiction, of which the Lawsons chose to avail themselves. The motion is unnecessary and frivolous, and is dismissed.

29] The second order sought is:

an order confirming that this Court recognizes each of the Applicants in propria persona, and each having the status of a private person, also known as a natural person, at common law for the purposes of these proceedings.

According to Mr. Lawson, this request was made of the Associate Chief Justice at the pre-application hearing and denied. I reach the same conclusion. This has no legal merit. The Lawsons are named individuals. There is no basis for the recognition of any special status, nor does one exist for them. There are no separate laws, rules, rights, remedies or procedures applicable to “natural persons” versus other individuals, or, for the sake of completeness, individual persons. In line with this, I order that the reference to “private person” following the applicants’ names in the style of cause be struck.

In short, all of the arguments that Lawson brought to court today were decisively rejected by the same court over four years ago. The cited paragraphs, even without any further submissions by the Crown, were dispositive of the issues in today's hearing. In the past four years he seems to have found nothing else that will help his defense and is still advancing arguments that are guaranteed to be rejected by the court. Perhaps he's so invested in his positions that he really doesn't understand this. I personally like paragraph 26 where Lawson warned the court of the dire consequences that would ensue if he wasn't given a hero's acclaim and his case quashed;

[26] In his supplemental argument Mr. Lawson argues that if the declaration is not granted there is:

…. the potential that the public will begin to perceive that if no lawful superior court exists in which people can have a reasonable expectation of the equal protection of law, as provided for by the Canadian Bill of Rights, then they will no longer seek to have their disputes and grievances settled in the courts, but will be more likely to take matters into their own hands to obtain justice by more swift and certain means against perceived adversaries and oppressors.

[27] I will give Mr. Lawson the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was not meant as a veiled threat. Even so, the argument is not helpful, constructive or appropriate.

Rioots and mayhem, blood on the streets if the general public finds out that Canada is actually spelled C A N A D A in government documents! Crown stated something about page ten and the correct seal but I missed the name of the document Crown referred to. Crown said that the style of the court seal does not affect the validity of the summons. This was in respect to his arguments that none of the documents filed in the Supreme Court registry were allowable because the Supreme Court seal used on them was in all capital letters.

Crown then referred to a case I either copied incorrectly or isn't reported. I didn't get the name but the citation I got was 2014 SCBC 2573. There is no case listed in CanLii under that citation.

Crown quoted something from Madam Dean paragraph 2 to the effect that various courts have dismissed natural persons arguments and, from paragraph 9, about there being no merit to the argument that provincial judges lost jurisdiction.

"It is my respectful submission that for the past four years this court has been dealing with repeated applications on the same issues of capital letters" Then Crown brought Meads v Meads into the picture. ACJ Rooke of the Alberta Queen's Bench coined the term Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA). Crown said that it is not derogatory to identify proceedings as showing OPCA hallmarks. She listed some of these Meads hallmarks but I was too far behind to list them. Anyone wanting to read Meads can find it here;

http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq

And a review of the decision here;

http://ablawg.ca/2012/10/30/the-organiz ... gant-case/

The Crown said that Lawson's affidavit supporting his application contained argument rather than fact. Crown said that Lawson showed OPCA characteristics in these proceedings. We heard today that Lawsons said he was participating in a conditional status. Unnecessary use of notarized documents. Affidavits rare in pre-trial applications. Crown cited paragraphs 628 and 629 of Meads and stated that courts must use inherent jurisdiction to control process. It is our duty to identify common issues with other courts and identify OPCA litigants.

These are the cited paragraphs from Meads;

[628] OPCA litigants are typically self-represented, and that means they are owed the R. v. Phillips, 2003 ABCA 4, 320 A.R. 172, affirmed en toto, 2003 SCC 57, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 623, duty that a judge act to ensure the OPCA litigant=s right to a fair proceeding is preserved by guiding the litigant through the trial process. The Alberta Court of Appeal in Cold Lake First Nations v. Alberta (Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation), 2012 ABCA 36 at para. 24 described that obligation as a judge has A... a special duty to provide limited assistance to unrepresented parties ...@. At para. 25 the scope of that obligation is reviewed:

The extent of this duty depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offence, the defences raised, and the sophistication of the unrepresented party ... The judge's advice must be interactive, appropriate to the unrepresented party and to the surrounding circumstances of the case ... Just how far a judge should go in guiding an unrepresented party is a matter of judicial discretion ... [Citations omitted.]

[629] That is clearly a contextual response. In OPCA litigation, that duty occurs in the face of vexatious litigation and procedural strategies that are designed to disrupt court operation and impede the exercise of legal rights. OPCA litigants have chosen to implement strategies that they have been told will, at a minimum, paralyze court operation, if not break it. That means OPCA litigants have, first and foremost, decided to adopt vexatious litigation strategies. These OPCA litigants claim (wrongly) to be outside court jurisdiction - the rules do not apply to them.

"The Crown submits that the orders being sought today relate to two things, defects in documents and jurisdiction of the court."

Defects - "There are no defects in the documents. There is no issue of claimed meaning in different letter cases. The styling does not indicate location or legal status. The defendant and places are clearly identifiable in all documents. Prescribed forms are not mandatory in criminal cases. The Interpretation Acts says "Where forms are prescribed deviations from the common form do not invalidate the form". In day to day practice it is impossible to make all forms the same. Compute document copying, personal preferences, all result in differing forms. These do not affect the substance of litigation. So there are no defects and none of the documents are a nullity."

- Lawful jurisdiction - "There is no merit to the argument that these proceedings are not in the lawful jurisdiction of the court."

Since Lawson was so obsessed with the details of the Supreme Court Act and his interpretation of it the Crown apparently thought it a good idea to cite a section which said that the court had jurisdiction over all of British Columbia and could sit anywhere in British Columbia. The territorial jurisdiction of the court was not broken up into required districts, it covered all of the province of British Columbia. I believe counsel was referring to section 9;

9 (1) The court continues to be a court of original jurisdiction and has jurisdiction in all cases, civil and criminal, arising in British Columbia.

(2) The court may sit and act, at any time and at any place, for the transaction of any part of its business, civil or criminal, or for the discharge of any duty.

(2.1) Without limiting subsection (2), and despite any rule of law or enactment to the contrary, any criminal or civil matter that under any rule of law or enactment is to be or must be heard, or that an accused or a party is entitled to have heard, by the court in one of the County of Vancouver or the County of Westminster may be heard at any place within the Vancouver Westminster Judicial District that the court appoints.

(3) Subject to the direction of the Chief Justice, the court must sit in each place where there is a registry of the court as often as is necessary for the reasonable dispatch of civil trials and other business.

(4) The registrar must prepare a calendar of the dates when the court proposes to sit in any place to be published in the registry located there.

Regardless of whether Lawson claims to be a special person, private or conditional, none affect his status in this court. Crown mentioned a few of last week's arguments to show Lawson was just repeating himself in this hearing. It is Crown's submission that there is no merit to this application, no basis to find a Charter breach or make any awards in respect to application.

Lawson had the right to a reply but we were out of time after a long day. There was a pre-trial conference scheduled for the same judge in three days on April 1 and judge told Lawson he could make his reply then. While my dental appointment meant I couldn't make it I found out the result. All of Lawson's applications were dismissed.

Later, writing this up, I realized I actually at one time knew and worked with the judge! Her name is Justice Jeanne Watchuk and, way way back in (I believe) the early 1980's she worked in the tax component of the Vancouver Department of Justice and I recall her being involved in some file I was working on. She went from Justice to the Provincial court of British Columbia and, in 2010, moved upward and onward to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And the reason for her promotion was again connected to my past. She was appointed to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Ian Pitfield who had retired from the bench. In the 1970's Pitfield was a lawyer at (at that time) Thorsteinsson, Mitchell, Little, O’Keefe & Davidson, Vancouver's main tax law firm and now just named Thornsteinssons. It is Canada's biggest tax law firm. I dealt extensively with Thornsteinssons lawyers throughout my CRA career, including Pitfield. He followed the same path as Watchuk, appointment to the Provincial Court and then appointment to the Supreme Court.

I plan to attend the first week of Lawson's trial but, unfortunately, I'll miss the second week because I'll be in Death Valley and, for at least for one night, staying at the Amargosa Opera House;

http://www.amargosa-opera-house.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amargosa_ ... _and_Hotel

Sometimes retirement takes you in strange directions. Like lawson's trial.

[Burnaby49]

Thursday April 07, 2016

We'll be in two courtrooms today. Lawson's jury selection starts at 10:00 but we have a pre-trial conference at 9:15 first. So the pre-trial is held in courtroom 54 and the jury selection in 53. When I checked the court calendar to find the courtroom(s) Lawson was there checking too. He said he'd be up shortly but had to file something at the registry first. Heading to the courtroom I saw a huge line of people snaking through the courthouse rotunda and being shepherded by sheriffs. Turned out to be the prospective jurors for our trial. We started the pre-trial conference ten minutes late leaving too little time for the issues to be addressed. The Crown had asked for the pre-trial conference but Lawson, and his grievances, hogged the agenda. First he wanted to make a motion to the court. No surprise what it was. He had an objectiion, more whining about capitalization and his mistreatment. He doesn't consent to these proceedings, he doesn't consent to the use of his name because the court is ultra vires because of styling. The Crown has committed breach of public office by refusing to answer his questions. He was still on about his status as a private person and a natural person. "I am a private person acting in a private capacity". Last Friday's decision to dismiss his application was against the evidence before the court. He demanded the same damn things he's been demanding over and over for years. Which Supreme Court are we in and what is my status? The refusal to answer is unconstitutional.

Then he demanded yet again that the judge tell him where we were and who he is. Will you answer? Judge - no. "I have nothing further to say on my decision of last Friday. I have ruled that this court has jurisdiction and that concluded the issue." So Lawson yammered on. He had a motion of recusal he gave the court demanding that the judge recuse herself for bias. Apparently the judge was bias because she won't stop the fraudulent Crown counsel, she won't state that this is a legal court, and she refuses to agree that he is a private person. In other words the judge was obviously bias because she'd decided against him. Just like every other judge he'd ever dealt with.

Lawson then said he'd delivered a complaint against Justice Watchuk to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. That was what he was filing in the registry. Didn't seem to bother the judge in the slightest.

The Crown said that they wanted the judge to summarily dismiss Lawson's motion to change all the documents to his idea of correct styling. "Changing his name from all capitals to mixed case would just support the myth about capitalization. While he is saying yet again that he doesn't understand it's just that he doesn't agree. Your Ladyship clearly indicated that this is a lawful court and any declaration that he is a private person is inappropriate. He is a human being and has the same rights as other human beings." Lawson said that it wasn't about capitalization it is about . . . Judge cut in and told him not to argue capitalization again. He tried anyhow. He started rambling on how if it doesn't matter if he is called a private person or not then he should get the court order saying that he is a private person. (note, neither the judge nor Crown has ever said that "it doesn't matter if he is called a private person"). Judge - Stop re-arguing the issue. "You fundamentally disagree with me, I understand that." But Lawson wouldn't stop "I want an explanation!"

So the judge explained by summarily dismissing his application for her recusal. Then, for some reason, judge gave Lawson a bound copy of the Criminal Code of Canada. Something about a question from last week. Must have been from something discussed in last Friday's hearing that I hadn't attended. She said he could keep it. She asked if he had anything else. Back to "I'm confused and unrepresented. I'm confused if I'm a natural man or not so tell me! I need an answer if I'm a natural person or not if this case is to proceed." Sadly he can't call the shots on whether it proceeds or not. Judge said "Let's proceed to the jury room and talk about this later. The issue of capitalization has been addressed in my ruling but we have eighty people I don't want to keep waiting." But Lawson didn't care about people waiting, all he cared about was Lawson. He wanted to see the forms that the jury members received ordering them to attend the court session. And he doesn't want any government employees put on the jury. The Crown asked the judge to mention Paradigm Education Group and the Free Canadian Education Association the the jurors to see if any of them had interacted with either of these. I've never heard of the Free Canadian Education Association and apparently google hasn't either.

Then the judge asked Lawson if he had any further motions. I have no idea why she asked that question when it was past ten and our current courtroom was scheduled for a case starting at ten (there were people waiting outside for us to vacate) and almost a hundred people waiting next door. Of course he had further motions. He brought up our own Fussy Gus, Carl Gustafson. Carl had been a Poriskyite tax evader and had interacted with Lawson but had since seen the light and rejected the OPCA / Porisky path. Carl had pleaded guilty to income tax evasion and got a fine and a conditional sentence but no jail time. He was coming from Thunder Bay Ontario to testify for the Crown.

This is Carl's discussion;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9631

Lawson had issues with Carl we'd revisit later in the day. He still wanted to see the jury forms. Why? He wanted to see how the sheriffs vetted the potential jurors for impartiality. Judge told him there was no pre-screening of jurors.

So a ten minute break then over to the next courtroom. It was packed solid! I'm used to perhaps, at most, half a dozen people in the public seating except when school groups come in then you might have twenty or so. The courtroom had public seating for eighty-four, six rows of fourteen. Every one was taken except for one seat right in the centre which I grabbed. On top of this there were half a dozen or so people standing and ten people in the jury box. It was quite uncomfortable. All of those people packed into a fairly small area made it very hot. Potential jurors were fanning themselves.

Although selection was supposed to start at ten we didn't get going until 10:25. Lawson insisted in talking before we started. Keep in mind that his comments were made in front of about 100 people, mostly potential jurors in his trial. First he gave his conditional appearance as a private person spiel. Then he said that he was objecting to the trial because of the court's lack of jurisdiction. So, time to plead. The registrar read the charges out and asked him how he pled;

Count 1 - Keith David Lawson, at or near the City of Burnaby in the Province of British Columbia and elsewhere, between April 15, 2002 and August 26, 2010, did counsel various persons to commit the indictable offence of fraud in excess of five thousand dollars, contrary to section 380 of the Criminal Code and did thereby commit an offence contrary to section 464(a) of the Criminal Code

How do you plead, guilty or not guilty? "I'm unable to plead because I don't understand it and I haven't had an opportunity to express my concerns." The judge said that she had the authority to plead on his behalf and she was pleading not guilty for him.

Count 2 - Keith David Lawson, of the City of Burnaby, Province of British Columbia, between December 31, 2003 and May 1, 2009, did wilfully evade or attempt to evade payment of taxes imposed by the Income Tax Act in the amount of $46,176.20 for failing to report his taxable income in the amount of $213,213.13 for the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2008 taxation years and did thereby commit an offence contrary to section 239(1)(d) of the said Act.

How do you plead, guilty or not guilty? "I don't understand it! I don't know what taxable income means. The court hasn't explained it to me . . .". Judge - "I take that as a not guilty plea." I object!

Count 3 - Keith David Lawson, of the City of Burnaby, Province of British Columbia, between April 27, 2009 and May 1, 2009, did make or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in, the making of false or deceptive statements in his T1 Individual Tax Return for the 2008 taxation year, filed as required by the Income Tax Act, by understating his taxable income in the amount of $12,759.56 for said taxation year, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to section 239(1)(a) of the said Act.

How do you plead, guilty or not guilty? "I don't understand. It has no factual or legal basis. I won't plead." I take that as a not guilty plea. "I object!" Noted.

Count 4 - Keith David Lawson, of the City of Burnaby, Province of British Columbia, between June 30, 2005 and January 1, 2009, did wilfully evade or attempt to evade compliance with the Excise Tax Act or payments or remittance if the Goods and Service Tax, by failing to collect or remit Goods and Services Tax of $12,223.16 on goods and services sold, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to section 327(1)(c) of the said Act.

How do you plead, guilty or not guilty? "I don't understand! I had no obligation to pay GST. It's not fair to expect me to respond to conclusions of law so I'm not pleading." Judge - "I take your statement to be a plea of not guilty and I deem a not guilty plea." "I object because I have demanded clarification that has not been provided."

Judge addressed the jury pool with the usual opening remarks thanking them for coming in and doing their civic duty. Boilerplate about responsibilities as citizens. She said the trial required twelve jurors and two alternates. Each juror had a number and the registrar would select numbers by lot. If your number is called come to the front and, after we have fourteen, we'll stop and give the parties a right to challenge you. Judge told them if they had any reason that they wanted to be excused to write it down on paper provided and give it to the sheriff. If the first set didn't result in the fourteen required jurors the registrar would draw another set.

Then the issue of bias. Judge said that if any potential juror had a previous association or relationship with her, the Crown, Lawson, or any of the witnesses, advise the court because of bias issues. She read off a list of witnesses, all CRA types except for Carl Gustafson. I was golden at being excluded from that jury had I been on the jury panel. I knew some of the CRA witnesses, I'd written about Lawson on Quatloos and, way back in the day, I even knew and worked with the judge when she'd been a lawyer working in the Department of Justice in their tax litigation section. Judge said that all jurors had to be Canadian citizens, be able to hear and see proceedings, and be able to understand an English only trial. The trial is scheduled for a month and if anyone has work difficulties or health issues about participating that long see me or the sheriff.

Then for the lucky dip! Some prospective jurors laughed when the registrar solemnly shook a wooden box of counters and then started digging around in them. She'd call a number then wait for that person to come up front before pulling out another. We soon had our fourteen then each stood in front of Crown and defendant and answer a few questions if asked. Each side had fourteen challenges. So first one up and registrar asked parties if they agreed to number 535.

Crown - "Content"
Lawson - "No problem"
Judge - "Mr. Lawson, if you accept a juror you say content"
Lawson - "Content your honour."

So first juror sworn in. Next went to Langara college and had exams during the trial period. Excused. Next wanted out for reasons I couldn't hear. She wasn't excused but stood down and told to stay until the rest heard. Number 745 worked part-time only on weekends so she was sworn in. Next passed a note to the judge who passed it to Lawson and Crown. Stood down. Next was an engineer who supervised a group and wanted to be excused because one of his staff had just left leaving them short-handed. Made a bit of a fuss how busy he was and how inconvenient being on a jury would be. Judge said work responsibilities no reason to be excused. Lawson - "content." Crown - "challenge." Number 70 excused on medical grounds. Next one had another note for judge. Copy of an airline ticket for a flight somewhere during the trial. Excused. Then first batch done with two jurors selected.

On to another dozen. I took a washroom break and had a muffin I'd bought earlier and when I got back there were six more jurors. Then Lawson challenged 246 for some reason I couldn't discern. A woman in her thirties. Crown challenged next. And on it went through the group.

Judge said she'd call one more group before break. First up a young woman who Lawson actually asked, for some reason not obvious to me, if she could read after he'd asked her what she did for a living and she'd told him that she was an accountant. So she said again "I have an accounting degree from UBC" (the University of British Columbia, my alma mater). Apparently that was an unacceptable answer because Lawson challenged her. A guy wanted off because he was in the process of being evicted and he was trying to fight it. Excused. Next had child care issues. Excused. Next asked to be excused because she worked with high-risk kids who needed constant supervision. Excused. Finally another with no issues. Content, content, and we had twelve with two alternates to go. I count nine that I've noted as being accepted so I've missed some.

Lawson confused me about the next one. She'd passed a note to the judge and the judge discussed it with her. She'd notified the judge that she'd been on a jury in the past two years. Judge asked her if she wanted to be excused because of recent service (being on a jury within past two years is an automatic get out of jail card). She said no but she wasn't sure if it was mandatory that she couldn't serve so she thought she should advise the Court. Judge said no, it was up to her. She was fine with it. Note this exchange was in lucid English. So Lawson asked her if she could speak English. That was the point where the jury pool started laughing at him although I think there were a few titters about the accountant too. I think she was accepted. We were now one juror short with the third batch done. Judge decided to keep going.

In next batch 661 was challenged by Crown for no reason that I could tell. Lawson challenged another woman in her 30's-40's. I'm terrible at judging women's ages. Lawson asked another juror how his English was. "Good." Challenged anyhow. Next same routine from Lawson. He asked a young guy "English Good?" "I'm getting by." Both sides content so we had our fourteen at 11:45. But no lunch break yet for Burnaby49! Everybody was excused then judge said we'd start the second pre-trial conference of the day in fifteen minutes.

A comment about the judge's role. When various potential jurors asked the be excused and gave reasons she gave three responses. First was to excuse. Second was to have them stand down but remain in courtroom in case they went through everybody and were still short. There were a batch of those I didn't bother noting. If that happened then I assume the judge would have to evaluate the merits of the various stand-down's requests. Third was to refuse to excuse. The judge's decision to excuse or stand-down seemed somewhat arbitrary. I didn't see a guiding reason for one or the other. I suppose that's why she's the judge and I'm not.

Debbie Anderson and Michael Millar had been here all morning. They attended the first pre-trial conference, sat outside during jury selection, and came back in for the second pre-trial conference.

Before the judge returned Lawson told Crown that he needed more time before the trial started. Crown said that he wasn't getting it, we've been at this four years. He blew up in a little hissy-fit over that and ranted at the Crown counsel that that was easy for her to say, she didn't have his responsibilities, he was taking care of his children so his wife could work and a whine about how he'd been so busy living a real life that he hadn't had time to prepare for trial. He seems to think a criminal trial is an imposition. He had some issue about Carl Gustafson's testimony and he wanted time to research Carl's proposed evidence. Russell Porisky tried exactly the same tactic in this pre-trial hearing;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10485#p218213

While this was going on our ten minute break stretched to thirty-five minutes.

Judge back at 12:25 to tell us that we just had a few minutes before lunch (court lunch break generally 12:30 to 2:00 but is flexible based on what is going on). She wanted to know what remained to be done before case went to trial. Crown had issues about evidence that it wanted to be allowed to enter on a USB for the jury to take into deliberations. Also some procedural issues to do with video evidence and computer evidence. Also wanted to give input on jury instructions.

Lawson's turn. He was still waiting for copies of Russell Porisky's letters to politicians. Porisky had sent out a flurry of letters to members of parliament apparently telling them he didn't have to pay tax and challenging them to prove him wrong. Apparently very few responses and those just meaningless. Lawson wanted copies of the letters and responses to show that they'd done due diligence. I suppose the lack of response was taken as approval from the federal government that they were right. Anyhow he wanted them.

Next on to Fussy Gus. Lawson had issues with Carl's proposed testimony. It was unfair to let him testify unless Lawson had more time to prepare. He wanted more time to review Carl's material so that he could cross-examine him.

Then lunch and back at 2:00.

Started again at 2:15. I had, at most, an hour because I was meeting a friend for beer and wings at The Pint at 3:30 and it was a fairly long walk.

Anyhow Crown first. Told court they had six binders of something from the Carl Gustafson's search they were not entering in evidence. Carl was going to enter some evidence that Lawson had given him. Apparently a lot of emails from Lawson. Then on to Lawson's request for more time to prepare for Carl's testimony. Crown said that Lawson had been notified that Gus would testify in December 2014. The only change since then is the reduction of evidence that Carl will enter. Lawson had been provided with the material and a transcript of Carl's trial testimony. So the Crown said that it was a bit confusing that Lawson needed more time prepare for a cross-examination of Gustafson. He hasn't prepared for it because he focused on other things and the trial should not be delayed to allow him to prepare.

Lawson complained that the Crown had given him too much material and he hadn't had time to read it. He said that when Carl was here in Vancouver (I assume Lawson is talking about a visit when Lawson was Carl's educator) Carl talked to numerous people and Lawson wants to contact all of them to find out what he said but he's having difficulty finding them all. Then a complaint that it is all unfair. Everything is unfair in Lawson's world. I have no time, I'm a stay at home father with no free time.

Judge - "What is determinative for me is that you have known for fifteen months that he would testify and you were provided with transcripts where he testified against his former partners. There are no surprises Mr. Lawson and I'm not going to grant what I take is your submission to adjourn the commencement of the trial. Mr. Gustafson is up at 2:00 on Monday and cross will probably begin on Tuesday." Judge said she would allow him to cross on Tuesday even if there was time on Monday.

Lawson - I object to . . . but judge cut him off. "I understand that you don't agree with my rulings but you have to move on after I rule. It has become a pattern that you disagree with my rulings. So stop, particularly in front of the jury."

A few housekeeping matters cleared up by the Crown and we were done after a long day and I headed off for a beer.

A personal note. I was on a jury panel once. This trial;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamish_Five

They were given a lot of concessions in the jury selection including asking questions not normally allowed. Each potential juror had to go on the witness stand and answer whatever questions they felt like asking. I only lasted a few seconds;

Defense - What is your occupation?
Burnaby49 - I'm an accountant working for Revenue Canada as an income tax auditor.
Defense - Challenge.
Judge - Juror is excused.

[Burnaby49]

Monday April 11, 2016

The first day of trial and a disaster. This is a very short entry since the whole day went sideways almost immediately. Carl Gustafson was in court to testify but was asked by Crown to wait outside until he was called. This courtroom had only about half of the public seating of the last one but not a problem since the only spectators were Millar and me. For some reason this courtroom has six counsel tables, normally just two.

Lawson seemed very nervous. Turned out he was sick. We started out about twenty minutes late but not the judge's fault. There were issues. As you will recall on the 7th we empanelled twelve jurors and two alternates. Well only eleven of them available today making us one person short for a jury. Two claimed sick, one apparently clearly not able to attend and the other uncertain. The third juror, while in court, had a note for the judge which got her excused. Judge said that there was a civil panel being selected this morning and we could grab a bunch of them to do a quick jury selection to cover our current losses.

Crown said that Lawson had difficulty over the weekend and wanted to file an application. Lawson said he had a paperwork matter. He wanted to file a notice of protest over fraud and a notice of indictment about something or another. Standard start for him, essentially autopilot. Then he changed topics to discuss his weekend. He said he had the flu and I have to agree he sounded like it. His youngest child (two sons) was taken to Children's Hospital with disorientation and fever. Lawson said he stayed with him over the weekend and he was eventually discharged. He's improved but no medical explanation for his disorientation. On Saturday night second son started vomiting and on Sunday Lawson's turn.

Judge said that they would try to get the jury up to twelve again but the start of trial would be deferred. Lawson wanted a few days to recover. The Crown said that two witnesses have traveled here, one (Carl) has to return to his business, other more flexible. Not surprisingly this delay caused issues with the Crown witnesses. As Crown counsel was explaining this Lawson, who was sitting at counsel table, collapsed to the floor. Sheriff told judge we had a medical issue, break called and courtroom emptied. And that was it for the day.

At least I got to meet Carl. We chatted outside the courtroom for a bit and agreed to go out for a few beer and wings once he's finished testifying.

[Burnaby49]

Tuesday April 12, 2016

Another day and entirely different from yesterday's debacle. The ship seemed in danger of floundering but it somehow righted itself and sailed on.

As I went into the courtroom there were people sitting and lounging around outside but not entering. Turned out there were fourteen of them. A sheriff was with them. We had five students and two lawyers as spectators, no Michael Millar or Debbie Anderson. Students are a constant in the courtroom. It's like the tide. A bunch drift in, sit for a while then drift out.

Lawson was there and looked a lot better than yesterday. At start, without jury, the judge told us that we have 12 jurors today. Huh, where did the missing juror come from? Turned out one of yesterday's sick list was now back in action. Injured ankle. Lawson said that he could participate but he might have to run off to the washroom because of ongoing medical issues. You don't want to know details. The sick but present juror was brought out and questioned by the judge to confirm that she really felt capable of continuing. Judge offered her a choice of staying or being excused. She chose to stay so we were back on track.

Crown brought up the topic of the observers in the back, a bunch of students. She asked the judge to note to the observers about the publication ban and whether witnesses should be excluded from the courtroom except when they testify.

Then the people hanging about outside were brought in. They were potential jurors from last week's pool who's number hadn't been picked. Until our errant juror returned the Judge had intended to continue the jury selection to fill the depleted ranks but that was now unnecessary since we had a full jury. Judge thanked them and excused them. She told them that anyone who wanted to stay was free to do so. None took her up on the offer.

The Jury brought in and trial was finally started. The judge instructed the jury orally with a written copy of instructions also provided. Judge discussed findings of fact and law. It is my job to determine rules of law and it is your duty to accept the law as I give it to you. You must not decide on your understanding of the law or rely on any source apart from me. Only what you hear in court is evidence. Avoid media coverage (the only media present was me and I've been stomped already) and they were not to seek out evidence outside the courtroom. No internet research. She discussed hearsay and accepting evidence. You may accept all, some, or none from any witness. A lot of boilerplate about judging witness credibility and evaluating testimony. Decide the case on reason not emotion. Punishment is irrelevant and has no place in your deliberations. Punishment is my business. Don't come to conclusions until case over.

Then housekeeping. Explained hours, breaks, lunch. Leave the court promptly after end of day, don't linger after sitting. You are not lawyers or investigators. Keep off the internet. Do not read or post anything about the trial. Do not read about this case on a blog.

On to procedure. The Crown will present evidence first and defense does not have to testify or present evidence. The Crown has to prove it's case. Do not rely on any points of law brought up by Crown or Lawson. An explanation of examination in chief and cross-examination. Take notes if you want but focus on the witness. Judge explained things like objections, exclusion of jury in objections, a long monologue of instructions to the jurors;

- presumption of innocence
- Crown bears burden of guilt
- beyond reasonable doubt
- Lawson does not have to prove anything

On to selection of foreperson. Don't decide now. Get to know each other before you decide who you want. Everything said and done in jury room is absolute secret. Instructions done by 11:00. I noted that the judge had neglected to mention the issue of the publication ban.

Before we started the jury was excluded and the Crown told the court that the order for the witnesses had changed. Carl will be up tomorrow. Crown counsel told the judge that it was her understanding that the March 16th publication ban covered all proceedings.

Judge - What publication ban?
Crown - The one you imposed on March 16th.
Judge - What legal basis did I use to impose the ban?
Crown - Inherent jurisdiction

Judge asked Lawson why he'd asked for it. What reason did you ask? I don't remember. The Crown said the issue was presence of unaccredited media posting on a website. So now I have a new title. I've been called worse. Judge confirmed that there were certainly concerns in pre-trial hearings about the unaccredited media. However she seemed less certain about the ban being extended to cover the entire trial. She seemed to be indicating that if the Crown asked to have the ban lifted for the trial she would consider it.

Jury back in and it was time for Crown counsel's opening address to jury. She said that she would speak now and at the end and the other counsel would fill in between.

"This is about tax fraud. At the end of the trial I will ask you to find that Mr. Lawson is guilty. Tax laws are not optional and are to be obeyed by all citizens." Crown read out the charges which I won't repeat yet again.

"The charges relate to his involvement in Paradigm and his own business, the Free Education Association (so that mystery solved). You will hear much about Paradigm and Paradigm's theory. He promoted it and provided materials and teachings. He earned revenue through contracts to provide materials and services to students. You will see videos of a person called Russell Porisky. Lawson is not on trial for his beliefs or promoting beliefs of Porisky. He is on trial for acting on these beliefs and in doing so evaded income tax and GST."

Note - I think I screwed last paragraph up because he is on trial for counseling tax fraud by promoting Porisky's stupid scheme. But that's what I wrote in my notebook. I find it very hard to remember what was just said when I'm behind the curve scrabbling to catch up.

Count 1 - "He promoted the Paradigm theory and encouraged others to do the so. Paradigm teaches that if you use contracts for hire you don't have to pay taxes and you have a defense against tax evasion. This is wrong. You can't opt out of paying taxes."

Then Crown gave an outline of evidence. Called it a roadmap. There are two witnesses this afternoon. CRA officers involved in the search warrant regarding the Norall Group in Thunder Bay Ontario. One that you will hear from later is Carl Gustafson. He was a director of the Norall Group and he was Lawson's student. He will talk about the CRA search of his home and business. He will talk about meeting Russell Porisky and Lawson in Toronto and will talk about how Lawson advised him how to deal with the CRA when he was audited.

CRA witnesses will also talk about the searches in Russell Porisky and Debbie Anderson's houses and Lawson's apartment. Much of the evidence is in documents. The videos and documents are vital to understanding the Paradigm system. The Contract for Hire was a specific Paradigm branded document.

Crown explained how masses of paper were turned into computer documents. She gave a brief summary of points to be covered in her closing remarks. After Crown's case is closed Lawson may testify and present evidence but he is not required to do so. At the end of the day apply your common sense and life experience to evaluate what has happened and accept the law as Her ladyship states it.

Judge asked Crown if her witness was ready. "Unfortunately Your Ladyship it was our understanding from yesterday that witnesses were to start at 2PM today and we have housekeeping matters to discuss." So jury dismissed and time for housekeeping. Crown discussed re-scheduling witnesses. One from Ontario is to give continuity of documents seized at Thunder Bay. Mostly emails. The first witness will just identify discs that the witness burned. Second witness will testify that he collected documents. Carl will confirm that these are his documents.

Crown told the judge that Carl has been prosecuted for income tax evasion and had pled guilty. He has testified against his former business partners. "We intend to raise this with the jury. He has no other criminal record." Crown wanted judge to instruct jury not to draw conclusions regarding his conviction and instruct them that it is their job to determine his credibility. Crown is getting too damn efficient. I can't keep up. Some issue about a large screen TV to be made available for the jury to see exhibits. Something about an affidavit Lawson made to CRA. Can't remember what.

Lawson was asked if there were any matters he wished to discuss. Was that a rhetorical question? He has a document he wants to ask the CRA witnesses about. A procedure manual called the TOM manual (Taxation Officer Manual). Here is an article on them;

http://www.nationaltaxservice.ca/tax-ed ... uals-toms/

These are essentially recommended procedures in performing audits or other CRA functions. I was a CRA auditor for 35 years and don't recall ever opening one. However, to tax protesters, they are a bible of secret practices and procedures. Judge asked "Is it relevant to today's witnesses? They are just here for continuity. Why is this relevant to that? If you want to challenge CRA's processes or policies these witnesses are really not appropriate."

Lawson said he wanted to lay a foundation to find out the standards of training of CRA officers. "I want to ask CRA witnesses if there is a document you are familiar with and are you trained on it?" Crown said "We didn't give him this and don't know where he got it. We don't think it is relevant to any witness." Lawson said he got it from the CRA's main office on Pender street, an office I worked in for about four years.

Then Lawson said that he wanted to review the audio transcript because he'd heard something said by the Crown to the jury about 11:20 that he thought inappropriate. He didn't need to review the audio because we all heard it. Crown had said something to the effect that after reviewing all of the evidence she was sure that the jury would find that Mr. Guilty is guilty. Judge confirmed this and said no need to listen to the audio. Judge said just a common mis-speaking error. Judge instructed Crown to tell the jury at the 2:00 return to trial. Judge said not to draw undue attention to it. Just a mistake.

So, when we started at 2:00 Crown apologized to jury and said "his name is Mr. Lawson and he is presumed innocent".

First witness was a Vancouver CRA employee. A woman who worked in the informatics investigation section. Crown asked her "What documents did you bring with you? My search and seizure (illegible) from August 21, 2010 and my notes. We conduct search and seizures of electronic devices and storage media. She'd done this since January 2010. She'd done a search at Lawson's apartment in Burnaby and found nothing covered by the search warrant on his hard drive. Were you involved in a search in Ontario? I made CD's from data submitted by Investigations in Ontario. She said she made four copies. What is on them? Excel spreadsheets with hyperlinks to other files. Then a walk through the documents. I won't bother detailing them. The CD described by the witness was entered into evidence, then another CD. Lawson did not object. Did you do anything that might impact on the contents of the files. I did nothing that would have affected the data.

Lawson's turn for cross-examination. Did you have a pre-search meeting before searching my house. Correct. Was there anything unusual about the discussion? No. Did you discuss Paradigm and natural persons? No. Are you aware of Project Fable? No. You were not told this was Project Fable? No.

Note - Quatloos has a discussion on Project Fable;
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9390&p=172549

What did you look for in the search? Whatever was in the warrant. Crown stopped testimony for a moment to say that she couldn't hear. The judge and I were having problems too. You just checked computes and electronic devices? Correct. Did you know about the Paradigm scheme? Yes. Did they tell you key words like tax protester? No. Do you have a copy of the warrant. No. What do you mean by personal residence? Place where people live. Are you trained to use that term? Is that term in the Income Tax Act? Crown objected on relevance. He continued this line for one more question. Is personal residence defined in the Act? I don't know.

You should note that, as far as I can tell, the only purpose of this testimony was to have the witness identify the discs placed into evidence, and confirm that she made them from data sent from Ontario. Crown was attempting to prove the documents by connecting the information on the discs to the search of Carl Gustafson's offices in Thunder Bay Ontario. If Lawson could show a break in this chain he might be able to get the evidence deemed inadmissable. Instead he went on a frolic about personal residences and the search of his apartment which had absolutely nothing to do with the discs entered into evidence. The Crown had not submitted any evidence derived from his apartment search and the witness had testified that she had not seized any evidence at his apartment. I have no idea, then or now, what he thought personal residences had to do with his case.

Next he handed her a copy of a TOM manual. Did you have policy manuals that you referred to when you began the investigation? Yes. Have you seen this TOM manual before? I've seen something similar. Lawson said he was trying to give context. But context to what? I have a question about your training. Have you ever prepared an Information to require a search warrant? Note - I don't have the answer to this question. He referred to a section of the manual regarding obtaining search warrants. Did you train with it. I can't remember. He asked a very vague question, are you trained in these principles?

Crown stopped him and asked judge for a discussion with jury absent. So jury excused. Crown said that there was no proper foundation for this (TOM manual) to be read in front of the jury. The witness was dismissed while this was discussed. Crown said that there was a tenuous relevance to the manual. It was an audit manual not an Investigations manual. The judge told Lawson that nothing was seized from his residence so she failed to see how the questions around search protocol were relevant. "Let's be clear Mr. Lawson. We are not putting the CRA on trial. They are not at trial. There needs to be a connection to the manual in your case. What the witness was training on or what manuals she saw is not relevant to the continuity of the documents." Lawson said that a lawyer had told him that he could ask anything he wanted in cross-examination. He rambled on about a bunch of irrelevant questions he wanted to put to the Crown witnesses to lay a background to show that the CRA staff didn't have consistent training. Judge said that this was not relevant to the issues at trial. The witness's training and familiarization with manuals is not relevant to the evidence and the standard of training of the CRA staff is not relevant. "We are not embarking on an investigation of the training of witnesses." "You are depriving me of my right to examine witnesses!" Crown said - "Just so Crown's position is clear. The search warrant is not under attack and questions on the warrant are not relevant". Judge agreed.

So everybody back in. Have you seen TOM 7? Yes. Some more pointless questions that had nothing to do with the CD's entered into evidence. Did you see an office space in the apartment when you did the search or was it a family home? It appeared to be a home. That was it for cross, no redirect.

Next witness was a CRA employee from Ontario. He wheeled in a big case and took out a pile of documents. The Crown wanted him to identify documents taken in a search in 2011, He's the flip side pf the coin from the prior witness. She received data and turned it into SC entered in evidence. He sent the data from Ontario. We're being lead back to the original files in Carl's office.

My title is Senior Forensic Investigator. He's been a team leader in Computer Searches and Recovery since 2006. "We are involved in criminal investigations in seizing and processing electronic evidence in searches." Were you involved in a search on June 22, 2011? Yes. The Norall group of companies in Thunder Bay. Who were your targets. Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson, and Carl Gustafson. Your role that day was to search anything that could contain electronic data? Yes. He testified that he'd seized two laptop computers. Were other electronic devices seized? Yes, a server backup. He asked to check notes. Fine. Confirmed it was something I think he called a Reid Server backup. Then the questions and answered followed the trail of the three electronic devises to show continuity. He gave a review of the process followed to examine the computers. He made an identical coy from the computers of whatever was on them then put the computers in secure storage and did not touch them again. We used the copies. He went through a detailed review of the process of going through and cataloging the data on th computers. Then break.

We started again at 3:25. The Crown asked the witness to explain technical terms. Then more technical talk about forensic reports and the path the data took to get from Carl's office to here. He was the individual who provided the documents to our first witness. So, barring a withering cross-examination, the document's path from Norall's computers to the courtroom has been proven. He identified his Excel spreadsheet cataloguing the documents sent to Vancouver. At this point, with 20 minutes left in the day, I had to bail. My wife had a 2:30 to 4:00 dental appointment a few blocks from the courthouse to get a root canal done. I had to meet her at 4:00 to see that she made it home.

[Burnaby49]

Wednesday April 13, 2016

Millar sat in court today. Carl waiting outside. Same CRA witness as yesterday.

Before jury entered court Crown brought up Carl's travel schedule. Because of Monday's delay there is not enough time to get his testimony in before his flight so they are trying to change his flight from Tomorrow morning to Friday.

Yesterday's witness is still on direct but almost done. Judge warned Lawson about being relevant in cross-examination. Lawson wants all of tomorrow and Friday to cross Carl. Judge said that the only way that will happen is if he remains relevant. The Crown said that Carl has 3:30 flight Friday so he can testify in the morning. Two full days for Carl should be enough. Judge again reminded Lawson about relevance. So jury in and back to witness. Crown questioned him about evidence trail regarding the three discs entered in evidence. Which specific devices in Norel's office contained which seized evidence? He identifies servers, desktops and laptops. Could the device that you used to copy the information from the computes to the discs have altered the information? No.

Then Lawson's turn. What was your role in the search? To assist in recovering data. What did you do before becoming electronic expert? Were you involved in search warrants? Yes. Lawson passed him a document. A copy of a CRA manual regarding search warrants. Have you seen this before? Not this specific document but I've seen one very similar. When you were an Investigator were these the rules you followed? Rules or guidance. Did you follow it? I can't recall. It's been a long time since I was involved in this. Did you lay charges under the Criminal Code or the Income Tax Act? I'm a manager and no longer involved in this but I used to lay charges under both the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act. And that was it for cross.

Now whatever Lawson was questioning the witness about seemed totally irrelevant to me. I assume that, had he continued, Crown would have objected. Essentially the same issue regarding the CRA manual as the first witness. I suspect that Lawson is asking about Criminal Code vs Income Tax Act in order to try one of Russell Porisky and Edwin Siggelkow's doomed defense tactics. Argue that the search warrant was issued under the wrong authorization. If so there are three reasons it will fail;

1 - It was a warrant issued to search Norall's offices in respect to Carl, Allan Curle, and Bruce Johnson. Lawson cannot challenge a search which was not made in respect to him.
2 - The witness had nothing to do with getting the search warrant authorized.
3 - This issue about different statutory authorization has been beaten to death. As I wrote in Edwin Siggelkow's discussion;

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.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9894#p178283

Lawson must know all this but he's not a guy to stop making an argument just because it is guaranteed to lose. He's been arguing, and losing, capitalization for years.

I thought both Crown witnesses excellent. And I've seen some CRA disasters in my time.

So it was now the turn of Quatloos' own contributor fussygus AKA Carl Albert Gustafson! Carl (I'll call him Carl, he and I had a grand time pubbing the next evening) carried a big box of documents to the stand and, after he was sworn in, nodded hello to Lawson. Crown asked him what the documents were. My disclosure files from my conviction for tax evasion.


What do you do for a living? - Professional engineer in Thunder Bay. He has a company, Aegus Contracting, that had been started by his father. Prior to this company he worked for Norall Group Contractors, starting in 1996.

How long were you involved in Norall? - 15-16 years.

Do you have a criminal record? - Yes, my conviction for tax evasion.

You pled guilty and were sentenced? - Yes.

What sentence? - A 100% fine for taxes evaded and a nine month conditional sentence.

Did you have any interaction with Crown before you were sentenced? - Yes, we discussed things until I agreed that I was guilty.

Did you discuss with Crown that you'd give testimony? - No.

This is how the CRA described Carl's sentencing;

THUNDER BAY, ONTARIO--(Marketwired - Oct. 30, 2013) - The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) announced today that Carl Gustafson, a professional engineer (P.Eng.) and a director of Norall Group Contracting Inc., was sentenced on October 25, 2013, in the Ontario Court of Justice in Thunder Bay to a fine of $84,417 and given a nine month conditional sentence that included five months of house arrest and four months of curfew. Gustafson pleaded guilty on September 3, 2013, to one count of income tax evasion. The fine represents 100% of the total federal income tax evaded. Gustafson was given two years to pay the fine.

A CRA investigation found that Gustafson followed a tax evasion scheme promoted by Russell Porisky through the Paradigm Education Group (Paradigm) and in doing so failed to report $459,174.01 in income. The unreported income was paid to Gustafson by Norall Group Contracting Inc. for services rendered, for the years 2005 to 2009 inclusive. Gustafson was counseled to file false income tax returns by a member of the Paradigm Education Group. The Paradigm scheme is based on the faulty premise that the Federal Government cannot impose a direct tax on a human being because it would be unconstitutional and further, that taxing the labour of a human being would violate the Canadian Bill of Rights as it is a confiscation of property.

What were your first encounters with Paradigm Education Group? - Allen Curle was having Child support issues with his former girlfriend and spent lots of time researching this. He found the natural person theory and told us about it. We ordered materials from Paradigm and we tried to reverse engineer the theory to disprove it.

Who is we? - Me and Allen.

When was this? - Spring 2003

Did you meet any Paradigm people? - We met Russell Porisky and Keith Lawson in an airport hotel lobby in Toronto.

Did you meet him (Lawson) again? - One other time in 2009 when we met in Surrey after the Stanchfield ruling.

Is Lawson here? - Yes, the defendant (pointed to Lawson).

This is the Stanchfield decision Carl was referring to;

Canada (National Revenue) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/22g7x

Which totally demolished the entire facade that Porisky had thought up in his Paradigm scheme;

[24] The question submitted to the Court by the respondent contains a qualification to the term “natural person”, in that it asks not only if the definition of “person” within the Act includes “natural persons” per say but rather natural persons, “acting in their own private capacity for their own private benefit”. Thus the question which at the hearing the respondent qualified as being the fundamental underpinning of this case, that is the question of capacity. Fundamentally, each individual human being, or natural person, has a legal capacity. As the Black’s Law Dictionary[5] makes clear, an “individual” is something which is “[e]xisting as an indivisible entity” (emphasis added). Cory Stanchfield, the human being or natural person before this Court, is an individual whose entity is indivisible. He has a legal capacity but it too is indivisible. He may act in other capacities than that of his individual capacity but only in such capacities which are recognized by law.

[27] If this is true for a corporation, purportedly created by a legislature, it even more so for a natural person. Cory Stanchfield’s attempt to argue before this Court that his body comprises two persons which act in different capacities is of one of two things: (1) an inadmissible division of his indivisible entity, or (2) an attempted creation of a second entity in a fashion which is not recognized by law, the result of which amounts to nothing in the eyes of the law. It is an attempt at the impossible and the respondent cannot do the impossible. Therefore, “Cory Stanchfield (the Respondent)” and “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)” is but one person, with one single capacity, whom is directly included in the definition of “person” contained at subsection 248(1) of the Act.

[28] Thus, natural persons, whether described as acting in their own private capacity for their own private benefit or not, are directly included in the definition of “person” contained at subsection 248(1) of the Act. This is because the qualifying terms “own private capacity” and “own private benefit” are of absolutely no relevance in the eyes of the law.

And, to really stomp Stanchfield's moronic natural persons argument flat, the court issued a second judgment fining him guilty of contempt of court for failing to obey a prior court order on the basis that it was not made against him, the natural man;

[25] None of this information was contradicted by Mr. Stanchfield, who testified first in his capacity as a “natural person, for his own benefit” and as a witness for the respondent, and then as the respondent himself. In his capacity as a “natural person”, he confirmed that he has done the various acts, signed the various documents, incorporated the various companies, held the various accounts, etc. as stated by Ms. Tove Mills. His only disagreement with the applicant stems from the differentiation he attempts to make between his various capacities.

[26] For the reasons already stated previously, this is a distinction that finds no basis in the Act nor in Mr. Justice Gibson’s Order. The distinction drawn by Mr. Stanchfield between his capacity as a natural person and his capacity to act in some other way is entirely of his own doing, and is devoid of any support in the case law. He has conceded that his various identities occupy the same physical body, have the same birth date and sign the same way. In fact, he would be unilaterally choosing in what capacity he acts; this is obviously an untenable proposition, and one that runs afoul of any tenable interpretation of the Act.

[27] Section 123 of that Act provides that an “individual” means a natural person, and that a “person” means an individual, a partnership, a corporation, the estate of a deceased individual, a trust, or a body that is a society, union, club, association, commission or other organization of any kind. Nowhere in these definitions do we find a distinction between a natural person and the legal representative of the taxpayer. Moreover, it is beyond dispute that Mr. Stanchfield, in whichever capacity he may choose to act, was clearly contemplated as coming within the Order of Mr. Justice Gibson.

[28] On the basis of the evidence submitted to the Court, I am therefore of the view that the applicant has established the required prerequisites for a finding of contempt. It does not matter whether Mr. Stanchfield had the intent to contravene the Order of Mr. Justice Gibson, as mens rea is not a required element; it is only relevant as a mitigating factor relative to the penalties to be imposed.

[29] Rule 472 deals with the penalty which may be ordered on a finding of contempt. This Court has developed a number of principles with respect to the assessment of a penalty for contempt. However, the Court of Appeal in Winnicki v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2007 FCA 52 (CanLII), held that an individual should be provided an opportunity to make submissions as to the appropriate sentence before the Court disposes of that question. I shall therefore rule on that issue after the parties have had a chance to file further submissions and to be heard on sentencing.

A yet another Stanchfield decision where the court stomped on his natural person stupidity;

Canada (National Revenue) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 72 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/22bqk

Back to our hearing;

What happened in the Toronto meeting? - They explained why the theory was valid and why it was lawful and legal.

How was it described? - A natural person acting in his own capacity for his own benefit was not subject to the Income Tax Act.

Did you purchase any products or services? - Yes. We bought an extensive package but I can't recall details. We (he now included Bruce Johnson, the third engineer in the firm in the "we") tried to take apart what they'd said and tried to see if it held water, if it was true. Through correspondence we arranged the company business affairs to Paradigm's system. We structure it to have us as natural persons acting in our own capacity. We took away the joinder that connected us to the company and we became sub-contractors. Avoiding joinder was very important. Most of our dealings were with Keith, sometimes Porisky.

Did Lawson have a title in Paradigm? - He was an educator.

What were you? - We were students.

Describe the Paradigm agreement.
They provided guidance and got fees in respect to what we made, 7% of what we made.(taxes avoided/evaded). It went to Keith.

Did you and Curle sign the same agreement? - Yes.

How did you pay the 7%? - Through the Bank of Montreal to Keith's account.

Who gave you your instructions? - Keith. Keith and Paradigm told us to resign as employees of Norall. We then had a contract providing services to Norall as natural persons. I resigned from Norall January 15, 2005.

Did your work change after January 15, 2005? - No.

Did the company income change? - We changed our billings to company as sub-contractors. No taxes, EI, CPP, taken off. No PST as subcontractors. (note - PST is provincial sales tax. I don't know how that fits and I may have gotten it wrong in my notes and Carl said GST).

Following January 15th were T4's issued to you? - No.

That was from instructions? - Yes. From Paradigm. We were employees as opposed to natural persons and employees don't pay taxes because employees are company officers and we were no longer officers.

Another editor's note. This is a T4;

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs ... ges/t4.jpg

It is an information slip employers prepare for each employee listing all income earned and deductions from income such as tax, CPP, EI etc. The employee gets a copy and a separate copy is sent to the Canada Revenue Agency which matches them up to tax returns to ensure that employment income is reported.

What is Joinder? - A really important term. Joinder is where (notes very poorly done here. He said something about avoiding depositing cheques as a taxpayer). Is it a taxpayer cheque or somebody else? So we had to get new bank accounts as natural persons to separate us from role of taxpayer.

Is it the same human being working? - Joinder stopped us from putting money in the taxpayer's account. By having a natural person's account we didn't have to justify it as taxpayers.

What is a natural person bank account? - We tried to open accounts without ID. Hard because they want government ID which would create joinder to whatever government document you used, say a driver's license. That connected to government and made you a taxpayer.

Did you receive assistance from Lawson in signing documents? - Yes. He described letters to Revenue Canada, letters opting out of tax. He said to be forward and upfront.

Did you send them? - Yes.

What was the response? - Revenue Canada just sent boilerplate response saying we shouldn't abide by ideas. We sent it to Lawson and he said that the CRA was skirting the issue and you can proceed since they properly answer questions to prove that we are wrong. They couldn't answer.

So you restructured your relationship with the Norall Group? - Yes.

What changes did Lawson advise you to make? - He was concerned that we put expenses in records so that we were not recorded as employees.

How did you receive money? - We made requests for compensation. We included wording that we were natural persons with no expectation of profit so no taxes.

What is no expectation of profit? - Income is a profit and is taxable but compensation makes you whole again. You have traded labour for money so you just broke even on the swap. You give me an apple and I give it back and we've broken even.

Crown brought up the Canadian Illusion. Carl said it was a package of documents supporting Paradigm's position. We ordered them from Paradigm through Keith. We ordered them to study Paradigm courses and do multiple choice tests.

When did the CRA start contacting Norall? - Late in 2007 they wanted to review Norall Inc. We were not working for Norall Inc. since we worked for Norall Contracting Inc. Then we got concerned about the validity of the theory.

What help did you get from Lawson? - Every time we got documents from the CRA we sent them to Keith. He provided responses. One was to get CRA oath of office so they would understand their legal liability.

Then it was break time and I needed it badly. I was way behind and recording from memory while trying to catch Carl's latest comments. At break I heard Crown asking Carl to slow down. My hand would certainly appreciate it. Back at all too soon.

What information did you discuss with Lawson? - We discussed what information we could give to the CRA. We had an agreement of privacy through a privacy clause in our contracts so we did not tell the CRA about our contracts. We got this advice from Keith.

These contracts were from 2005. Did you sign subsequent contracts with Lawson? - No but Keith wanted another because of the two year limit on the contract.

What happened to the money you gave to Lawson? - He kept some and gave the rest to Porisky.

A mea culpa here. I make no guarantees that I caught everything past this point. My notes are a solid block of hastily scribbled text but I still couldn't keep up. Too much too fast. Carl didn't listen to Crown's advice about pacing. Not that he spoke in a fast garble but everything he said was precise and to point and he moved along. And I'm an old man with a notepad on my knee. Not a balanced equation. A lot easier now when I'm transcribing this with Chet Baker on the earphones and a glass of red wine but at court things get pretty frantic..

When was your second meeting with Lawson? - 2009 after Porisky suspended Paradigm after the Stanchfield decision. We had a meeting in Surrey (a Vancouver suburb) to decide how to respond. We had extensive discussions about the case.

What did he tell you? - The ruling said there was no distinction between a natural person and a person under the Act.

What was Lawson's position on the case? - Porisky presented further information base on "income" being profit so not associated with the natural person.

So position was that income was still not taxable? - Yes, but for slightly different reasons than originally. Lawson also gave us his own case and Sydel case. Also many other cases we reviewed and discussed between me, Curle, and Johnston.

What Sydel material did you receive? - We looked it up on Westlaw

Did you purchase both sets of material from Paradigm? - Yes. From Keith. Subsequent to Surrey meeting and new position from Paradigm.

This is the Sydel decision referred too.

R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/1p2m1

However if your tastes run to outright crazy you can also rummage through these;

R. v. Sydel, 2005 BCPC 413
http://canlii.ca/t/1lswm

R. v. Sydel, 2007 BCPC 50
http://canlii.ca/t/1qz1

R. v. Sydel, 2007 BCPC 486
http://canlii.ca/t/25fwq

R. v. Sydel, 2010 BCSC 1470
http://canlii.ca/t/2d1nq

Sydel v. HMTQ, 2011 BCCA 233
http://canlii.ca/t/flgwp

R. v. Sydel, 2011 BCCA 103
http://canlii.ca/t/fkv6q

R. v. Sydel, 2010 BCSC 1473
http://canlii.ca/t/2d1nm

Sydel v. HMTQ, 2010 BCSC 638
http://canlii.ca/t/29lf7

Eva Notburga Marita Sydel v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2011 CanLII 62451 (SCC)
http://canlii.ca/t/fnc93

Eva Notburga Marita Sydel v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011 CanLII 82375 (SCC)
http://canlii.ca/t/fpfzp

Sydel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 1116
http://canlii.ca/t/g1rc7

As far as I'm aware Sydel was the first Poriskyite to go to trial. She was relentless in trying to force the courts to accept Porisky's theories and failed abjectly.

Then questions about the physical layout of Norall's offices and the identification and location of the computer equipment. What email system, dropbox, etc. I'll skip it.

On to Keith. Carl mentioned that Freecanadian.ca was the email address that Carl used to Contact Keith.

Did you know the Free Canadian Education Association? - Yes. It acted in concert with Paradigm.

Who did you associate the Free Canadian Education Association with? - Keith.

Then on to identifying documents. Crown had set up monitors so that judge and jury could all see screens. Crown handed something to Carl and asked him if he recognized it and to describe it. Yes, an April 2003 Canadian Free Education brochure from Keith. He was asked to describe contents. It has the initial letter signed by Keith as a human rights educator. A copy of the Canadian Illusion. There were seven folders of documents all apparently taken from the search of Norall's premises. The Crown kept asking Carl to identify documents on the screen because they wanted to present the evidence to the jury in digital format rather than cartloads of paper and they were using Carl to identity the digital copies as true copies of Carl's original documents. Carl had taken the originals to the stand in a box and he went through them describing them and verifying that the digital copies he was shown were, apart from being black and white rather than colour, exact copies of the originals. Not the most exciting testimony I've heard but essential and it gave me a break. In the end the Crown connected all of the Paradigm material found in Norall's office to Lawson through Carl's testimony stating that he got it from Lawson.

Crown gave Carl a big black box. He said it was a package from Keith that outlined the Paradigm theory. He was asked to describe box contents so he took each individual item and described it individually. Three CD's, one of a vide I think will be shown to the jury The Holistic Analysis of the definition of Person in the Income Tax Act. This video was also played at Porisky's trial. A number of books, Carl read the titles. A lot of binders. Then same thing of having Carl compare physical documents to digital to verify that the digitals were true copies.

Lawson asked why some of the documents in the box had been removed and not entered into evidence. Crown said that they were documents of Lawson's legal opinions and mot brought into evidence because it was the judge's role to instruct the jury on the law. Judge said that the Crown had removed legal opinions. That was essentially the morning and we took lunch break at 12:25.

After lunch but before the jury was back in the courtroom events suddenly, and totally unexpectedly, became all about me. Lawson told the judge that he wanted Carl excused so Carl went outside. He then told the judge he wanted to "subpoena a person who's name I don't know who calls himself Burnaby49. He is in the courtroom now. He posts on a blog." He said that Carl had posted on Quatloos and I may have knowledge about his postings. He asked the judge for advice on how to subpoena me without having my name. Judge said no problem, just ask Carl who I am on cross-examination.

I jumped up at that and was told to sit down while Lawson and judge discussed me. Then judge asked if I wanted to speak. Damn right I did. I told her I was concerned about my identity getting out in court because I write about freemen on a website and some of them are trying to identify me. I would face considerable harassment if my identity became known. The Crown said they wanted to speak on the issue of my testifying and the judge said they would consider the issue between Carl's direct examination and cross-examination. Judge told me that she would be mindful of my privacy issues then had me excused since I was now a potential witness. So I didn't hear the rest of Carl's testimony. I just sat outside in the lobby fretting.

At afternoon break Crown asked me to stay for the rest of the day. She said that the judge might want to speak to me at the end of the day's session. Lawson, Crown and I had a short talk. He said that he had no idea that I had security issues. He said that he was very new to Quatloos and really knew little about it. What he is really interested in is Carl's posts on Quatloos. I explained to Lawson and Crown how I'd changed the name of Carl's discussion last night but that had nothing to do with the current trial. I told them that Carl does not have Quatloos access to either delete or modify any of his posts. I assumed that I'll be questioned tomorrow morning if I've done any deleting or changing. I also told Lawson and Crown that I'd only be available to testify today and tomorrow because on Sunday wife and I are off to Palm Springs for two weeks.

After the 4PM end of the trial day and with jury sent home there was a half-hour session discussing me. Crown told me that there is going to be a pre-trial conference tomorrow about my issues. Jury trial starts at 10 and I have to be there at 9:30 to give my side of the case about, I assume, why I shouldn't be outed. The judge is apparently going to spend the night rummaging through Carl's Quatloos posts and mine to find evidence of collusion against Lawson. Apparently all of Carl's posts are to be copied and entered into evidence. Crown is trying to keep me out of it on the basis or relevance. The judge has already told Lawson, frequently, to keep to relevant issues and it is Crown's position that I have nothing of relevance to testify about. I'd agree with that since I have no information whatever about Lawson or Carl apart from public information and whatever Carl has said about himself on Quatloos. However Lawson has a very shaky understanding of relevance. In his opinion anything and everything seems to be relevant if he considers it so. And there is also another issue that the judge wants me to testify on, the publication ban. During that half-hour session from which I was excluded the judge made a motion on her own volition to review her own decision imposing an overall ban on all of Lawson's hearings based on her inherent jurisdiction. I apparently have something relevant to say about that. Tomorrow promises to be an interesting day.

I'll give a wild guess what I think Lawson is up to. He has no boundaries when it comes to relevance so I'm just as relevant as Carl and the guy selling veggie dogs from a cart at the corner of Granville and Georgia. So, while I have absolutely no evidence relevant to his charges of tax evasion and counselling, he might think that I'm working with Carl to delete and edit Carl's Quatloos postings to get rid of the smoking gun, whatever it is, that Lawson probably thinks Carl posted on Quatloos. As far as I can recall Carl never mentioned Lawson on Quatloos or made any statements relevant to Lawson's trial. But in Lawson's world that's probably proof that he did exactly that. The absence of evidence proves that there is evidence. And if Carl made incriminating postings that Lawson can't find then they must have been deleted. Since Carl couldn't delete them the obvious suspect is Carl's buddy Burnaby49 who has moderator powers and can do what he wants on Quatloos. So perhaps he wants to tear me apart with his Clarence Darrow like cross-examination skills and prove that a conspiracy exists to destroy him. Does that sound moronically stupid? Not in the context of this trial.

Now for my opinion of Carl as a witness. I was a bit concerned before Carl went on because he tends to get a bit philosophical here on Quatloos and I could picture him rambling off into off-topic areas. But he was an excellent witness. The engineer in him came through. Clear, precise, knew the facts and dates. Answered only what was asked and didn't elaborate. Calm and polite, not nervous. Although getting sucked into Paradigm basically bankrupt him and got him a criminal record he didn't seem to be bitter about it or trying to get revenge on Porisky and Lawson. He placed the blame for his actions squarely on himself alone. I've seen a lot of witnesses and he was one of the best. Lawson is going to get nothing out of cross.

Carl and I had agreed to go for a few beers once his testimony was finished. But things were so uncertain after Monday's delay and Carl's pending return to Thunder Bay that we thought we should just do it now. We asked Crown if OK. That's an issue because Carl is a witness and I'm now a potential witness. Sure, as long as you don't talk about the case. So we went to the Pint.

http://www.thepint.ca/vancouver/

A fair walk from the court but it has one big draw. Free wings at happy hour (3-6 weekdays) if you order a beer. Very good wings too. They go through so many in happy hour that they are constantly preparing them so we got them even before we got our beers, right out of the deep fryer. Hot, salty and greasy, what more could you ask? Carl and I had a grand time but I reluctantly had to quit about nine rather than boozing all night because I anticipated having to testify tomorrow. So I thought I'd better show some sense for once. And we stuck to the no case discussion rule. I inadvertently brought something up and Carl immediately shushed me.

[Burnaby49]

Thursday April 14, 2016

Pre-trial conference started at 9:30. I was there on time but Lawson wasn't. Damn good thing too. The CRA witness who was to testify this morning is a guy in the Vancouver office I knew for years before I retired. As I walked up to him just outside the courtroom he called out Hey (insert my real name here) how you doing? Had Lawson been there he would have had my ID handed to him without even having to work for it. Since I'd been excused yesterday afternoon I asked Crown if I was allowed into the courtroom. Go ahead, judge can exclude you again if she wants.

Lawson wasn't in court either. He was sick again. On top of that the audio-visual system wasn't working and we couldn't have a hearing until that was fixed because there would be no record of proceedings. So they fiddled with that before the judge came in. They finally got it working and got Lawson on speakerphone. So, with everybody there and all systems good to go the judge took her seat. No jury yet though. Crown informed the judge that "the blogger we discussed" and Carl were in the courtroom. Since judge had no objections I stayed and took notes.

Lawson explained to the judge that he'd fallen sick again last night. Numbness, vomiting, dizzy spells He gave long story of past medical problems. He'd had his spleen removed which compromised his immunity system, went through prior illnesses, how he'd had difficulties yesterday, I didn't copy it all. He went to Burnaby General Hospital emergency and they thought it a possible viral infection. He has a doctor's note from the hospital, a form for absences from work or school, saying he should stay home until April 30. Judge asked "Do I understand that you are asking for an adjournment until April 30?" No but I don't know how long I need. I have the flu. What is your application Mr. Lawson? Can I call you next week? Judge said she would make a ruling in a few minutes.

Judge asked Crown if she had anything to say. She apologized tp judge for putting Lawson on the speaker without informing judge but he had phoned her earlier today and he clearly couldn't be here. Judge said she appreciated the assistance of the Crown as an officer of the court. Crown said that there was a problem with Carl's schedule. His father in Thunder Bay was in Intensive Care and he wanted to get back to him. He can return late next week or early the week after. So Crown and judge discussed rescheduling Crown witnesses. Juggling them about because of other scheduling problems. After that was done judge made ruling on Lawson's application. He'd been too vague for me to be specific on any precise request he'd made. As far as I could tell he had a note for all next week and wanted to just keep in touch with the judge by phone from time to time to tell her when he could make it. Judge said "Given Mr. Lawson's medical circumstances and his concerns it is clear that he is unable to proceed today. My ruling is that the trial will stand down today and tomorrow and reconvene on April 18 and you should be ready. I need the note from Emergency and a detailed medical certificate rather than just the emergency form." She said that Carl could go home to Ontario and come back to testify. This necessitated splitting his testimony. He hadn't finished direct yet but other witnesses could testify and he would finish when he returned.

The judge said that it was not possible to keep the jury past the four weeks scheduled so we must proceed. So trial restarts Monday morning 9:30. Carl was excused. Judge said "With regards to your return I will leave it up to counsel so you are stood down to a day to be determined. Remember that you are still under oath and should not discuss evidence with anyone."

Lawson had another issue. He wanted the revised witness order. Also something about DARS discs. I think he's referring to a copy of the recording of daily proceedings. I'm guessing he wants a copy of Carl's testimony. Then, finally, jury brought in. Judge explained that trial was adjourned until 10AM Monday and jury was excused.

Now, unfortunate news, particularly in these exciting times for Burnaby49. As I explained earlier I'm pulling a Robert Menard© and, coward that I am, I'm fleeing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia! On Sunday wife and I are flying down to Palm Springs for two weeks. We get very good free accommodation there. We first plan to visit the Salton Sea for a great greasy-spoon Mexican restaurant in the middle of nowhere;

https://www.tripadvisor.ca/Restaurant_R ... _319675679

As one review said;

To find this place after driving through the post-apocalyptic wasteland that is Salton City is to stumble on an oasis. It is plainly furnished, but the beer is cold, everyone in the place is very friendly, and the food is out of this world.

I can vouch for the post-apocalyptic wasteland comment. Do a Google map check of Salton City. You'll see an entire community of orderly, well laid out, named streets, generally in a crescent design. Then switch to satellite view and you'll find a bleak empty wasteland of unfinished dirt roads; a city of never occupied streets and neighborhoods. Totally bizarre. Wife and I were stunned the first time we went. I expected to find a populated small town and instead found an empty desert. We drove around and around trying to find Salton City not knowing that we were in it.

Next we're on to a night at the Amargosa Opera House and hotel;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amargosa_ ... _and_Hotel

Then Death Valley, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, the Huntington Library in Pasadena, and three aviation museums.

http://palmspringsairmuseum.org/
http://www.marchfield.org/
http://www.planesoffame.org/#_=_

Which means I won't be here to watch and report on Lawson's cross-examination of Carl. I really regret that. It is probably going to be highly entertaining. I assume that my issues will be resolved in my absence. The judge has been notified of my plans and I've not had sheriffs banging on my door so I assume she has no problem with my escaping her jurisdiction.

[grixit]

Now, unfortunate news, particularly in these exciting times for Burnaby49. As I explained earlier I'm pulling a Robert Menard© and, coward that I am, I'm fleeing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia! On Sunday wife and I are flying down to Palm Springs for two weeks. We get very good free accommodation there. We first plan to visit the Salton Sea for a great greasy-spoon Mexican restaurant in the middle of nowhere;

https://www.tripadvisor.ca/Restaurant_R ... _319675679

As one review said;

To find this place after driving through the post-apocalyptic wasteland that is Salton City is to stumble on an oasis. It is plainly furnished, but the beer is cold, everyone in the place is very friendly, and the food is out of this world.

I can vouch for the post-apocalyptic wasteland comment. Do a Google map check of Salton City. You'll see an entire community of orderly, well laid out, named streets, generally in a crescent design. Then switch to satellite view and you'll find a bleak empty wasteland of unfinished dirt roads; a city of never occupied streets and neighborhoods. Totally bizarre. Wife and I were stunned the first time we went. I expected to find a populated small town and instead found an empty desert. We drove around and around trying to find Salton City not knowing that we were in it.

The Salton Sea was created in the early 20th century. The Colorado River experienced an extraordinary flood and a lot of water ended up in a normally dry desert basin. Once cut of from it source, the water began to slowly shrink and get salty. Developers thought, cool, our own version of the Great Salt Lake, and built a resort town. But over time, the lake got too salty to be any fun, plus of course, a lot more substances than just salt were going in. The environment got really nasty and people left

Then Death Valley, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, the Huntington Library in Pasadena, and three aviation museums.

Hey! You know what's between San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara? That's right, Santa Maria. And you just drove right by. Ok, so we don't don't have any independent brew pubs (although i suppose Figuroa Mountain almost counts), but we do have our famous, or at least widely hyped, tri tip barbecue. Drop me a line next time, ok?

[notorial dissent]

I was under the impression that the Amargosa had closed.

[Burnaby49]

Monday May 02, 2016

Back at court to find I'd dodged the bullet. I've been away two weeks and trial is still in session but all evidence has been entered and case closed so Lawson can't subpoena me. Trial was supposed to start at 10:00 and I got there a quarter hour early to find things had already begun before the jury was called. I hadn't been aware that there was a half-hour conference before the jury was scheduled to come in. Yet another Lawson rant session about his unfair mistreatment. He's come up with an entirely new demand. This;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

That's right, he wants to try to convince the jury that they should let him off even if they are convinced he is guilty. A couple of problems. To start let's check Wikipedia again;

In a criminal trial, a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, yet they don't believe he or she should be punished for it. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case.

Juries tend not to be sympathetic to income tax evaders since most jury members are employees who have their taxes deducted at source and see them being used to support freeloaders who evade paying their share of taxes tax but voraciously suck up government services that the jury members have to pay for with their taxes. Like all of the free medical service that Lawson and his family got a few weeks ago paid for by those chumps in the jury.

Lawson's second problem is Judge Watchuk who, with no concerns for fairness or his rights, won't let him argue nullification in front of a jury. Apparently there was a big blow-up about this last Friday. At least Lawson is whining that the judge threatened to throw him in jail if he brought it to the jury. So let's get back to me sitting down and scribbling.

Lawson wants to have the judge allow what he calls an "expert" witness to explain jury nullification to the jury and tell them that it's perfectly ok to find him not guilty even if the Crown proves beyond reasonable doubt that he is. The judge said no. It is her duty to instruct the jury on the law. Lawson babbled on about his rights being violated. The judge said that he did not have the right to instruct jury on nullification. She gave him two citations from the Supreme Court of Canada, both very high-profile controversial cases.

The first involved an abortionist who was charged with performing illegal abortions.

Morgentaler v. The Queen, [1976] 1 SCR 616, 1975 CanLII 8 (SCC)
http://canlii.ca/t/1mzhx

He initially got off by jury nullification but this was reversed on appeal;

Appellant was accused of having procured the miscarriage of a female person by the manipulation and use of an instrument, contrary to s. 251(1) of the Criminal Code. During the trial which took place before a judge and jury, he admitted the act, but relied upon the common law defence of necessity and the statutory defence found in s. 45 of the Criminal Code.

A verdict of acquittal was returned. A unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal set aside this verdict and a conviction was entered with a direction to the trial judge to pass sentence. Hence the appeal to this Court as of right under s. 618(2) of the Criminal Code, on the basis that s. 251 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional; that it is inoperative by virtue of the Canadian Bill of Rights; that the preferred indictment was void as constituting an abuse of power by the provincial Attorney General; that the accused was entitled to the benefit of the defences of necessity and of s. 45; that the operation performed was not within the intendment of s. 251; and that the Court of Appeal could not substitute a conviction for an acquittal in a jury trial.

The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal thereby allowing the appeal court's guilty verdict to stand.

The second case was about an issue even more controversial than abortion. A father killing his severely handicapped child;

R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 SCR 3, 2001 SCC 1 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/523c

Judge told Lawson he couldn't have someone testify to the jury that they can just ignore the law if they chose.

Then he wanted to have input into the charges to the jury. These are the instructions and rules of law the judge gives the jury just before they are sequestered. I wrote about Russell Porisky's jury charges here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10485&start=20#p222679

Apparently Lawson thought that it was a joint effort and he could throw in a few jury instructions about how rock-solid his natural person argument was. Judge said that it wasn't a collaborative effort and that she was not going to revisit the issue. Apparently they had a long discussion about it last Friday and judge said that she was done with it.

At 10:00 pre-trial over to be resumed at end of trial session. Lawson was far from finished with his nullification attempt. We had a break until 10:30 and I stayed in courtroom. Lawson badgered the registrar about this and that for most of the break. Apparently he wants the recordings of last week's sessions because he can't remember what he said and he needs to listen to his own arguments. While they are available to him they are not immediately available, He'll have to wait until possibly the end of the day. He didn't take that with good grace.

Judge returned and there was some discussion about documents that the Crown wanted to give to jury. Lawson still wanted to talk about Friday. He objected to something to do with the money moving in and out of his bank account being identified as income and expenses. Judge said that she would note this on her charges and then jury let in. And there were only eleven of them. I identified the missing juror immediately since I'd been watching her a few weeks back. An elderly woman who seemed to have some problem right from beginning of trial. seemed confused entering and leaving jury box, like she was unclear about her surroundings and confused where she was. It got worse as the week went on so I kept my eye on her entering and leaving. She just didn't seem to be really aware of her surroundings. Had trouble even finding her seat and kept leaving things behind at breaks and lunch. She didn't seem to be paying much attention to trial. She was excused while I was gone because, apparently, it ended up that she really didn't know where she was, some medical issue. In British Columbia criminal trials a verdict can be given by a jury with a minimum of ten members so we still had a spare.

It was Crown's turn to give closing arguments. Started out with standard boilerplate similar to the Porisky closing arguments (same Crown counsel, they've been cast into Poriskyite hell). You can read their Porisky arguments here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10485&start=20#p222636

Counsel started by saying that the case was about tax fraud. You can't contract out of paying your taxes. You've heard about Paradigm and Lawson's interpretation of the law. This is not about the interpretation of the law. Madame Justice will instruct you on the law. All that is important is the evidence that you've seen or heard and her ladyship's instructions. Then lawyer ran through actus rea and mens rea;

Actus reus is the Latin term used to describe a criminal act. Every crime must be considered in two parts-the physical act of the crime (actus reus) and the mental intent to do the crime (mens reus).

One is the activity, the other is the intent. Counsel said that she would focus on the counseling charge because the rest flowed from this. None of the evidence from any of the witnesses was challenged significantly.

A note - Turned out that both Debbie Anderson and Keith Lawson testified. And I missed it. Crown made considerable use of admissions that Lawson made in his testimony in her closing arguments.

You have been exposed to Paradigm's theory. In evidence it was clear that he was a Paradigm educator and taught Paradigm theory. He was paid for this and for materials. Lawson also admitted that he assisted students when they were contacted by the CRA. Based on Lawson's own testimony it is obvious that Porisky was the hierarchical leader and that Lawson was an associate.

You should have no trouble concluding that Lawson studied the Income Tax Act and was well aware that he had to pay taxes and GST. You should have no difficulty concluding that Lawson earned money and profits from his endeavours with Paradigm. Mr. Lawson agreed on cross that he had money left over to support his family. The videos (you saw) are essentially showing that Paradigm's theory encouraged tax evasion. Madame Justice will instruct you that a belied in the paradigm theory is not a defense in law. The materials (Lawson provided) encouraged tax evasion and fraud on the government.

There are inferences that you can draw from the videos. From the first video the comment that tax is an illusion and the "stop working for the taxpayer" message was that by restructuring affairs to be a natural person you could avoid tax. You can infer from the Tax Court Planning video that the video was preparing Paradigm followers for the inevitable CRA attention.

I suggest the following is the Paradigm theory. The taxpayer is an artificial person. If one avoids being an artificial person one becomes a natural person and one can avoid paying tax because Bill of Rights protects your property. Only artificial persons pay taxes. Use the forgotten option of working under a contract for hire as a natural person. According to Paradigm theory a natural person running a business can value his labour at whatever he wishes therefore there is no net profit if value the profit as labour. This does not match to any law or common sense.

Lawson is not on trial for holding or sharing his beliefs. But he counseled others to act on his theory. It is Lawson's act of promoting that constitutes fraud. Supplying books, telephone conferences, training. If you believe and follow theories the defense would be available to them in any audit or legal proceedings that they did not intend to evade (because they were following the Paradigm teachings). I suggest that this is not a defense. You can only conclude that he was dishonest and deceitful.

In cross Lawson made it clear that he attended some of Sydel case and he distribute Paradigm's response and he knew from this that the court had rejected the Paradigm theory in 2006 but he continued to promote the Paradigm theory after this. I posted a link to the Sydel decision in my April 13th write-up. Here is the link to Paradigm's response to the Sydel decision. 56 pages of complete, absolute bullshit.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/4968k522c ... cision.pdf

Then break. Before jury returned Lawson said that he wanted all of tomorrow off from the trial. Note that we are in the last week of a four week trial that can't be extended and Lawson has already had at least two days off for health issues. Judge said that we're not giving you a day off. Then jury in and back to Crown's arguments. Doing a great job of laying things out logically. A lot better than my hit and miss copying.

On the evidence before you it is clear that Lawson conducted himself according to the Paradigm theory for many years and did not fill out tax returns. Next the Crown discussed his two bank accounts. One for himself as a natural person and the second for the Free Canada Education Association. This was apparently just something he used as a convenience and he later folded its bank account into his personal account. He opened his personal account without providing his SIN number (our equivalent of a national identification number) by proving his identity through his Irish passport. First time that I'd heard he was Irish. He also used a home-made natural person identification card. He said he only identified himself to bank under duress and he blacked out anything in the bank forms in capital letters.

Then Crown went into a long detailed description of Excel spreadsheets that the CRA had prepared to show Lawsons income and expenses to verify that he actually had income that he should have declared tax on. I stopped following at this point. After a career in the CRA I can skip revisiting all those calculations. After an extended ramble through the documents Crown noted that it was 12:25 and that she wouldn't, as expected, finish before lunch break so this might be a good time to take lunch. So back at 2:00.

Now a personal note. When we reconvened at 2:00 there were two new spectators. Males in their 40's or so wearing shorts. After the abuse I got at New Westminster Provincial Court on this issue I can at least confirm that the Robson Street courthouse of the Supreme Court of British Columbia allows shorts.

Lawson wasn't there at 2:00 and had to be paged twice. I think a phone call to the court registry on the main floor (we are in courtroom 605) got him up. Back to Crown's arguments. All Crown has to do is show that some taxes were owed in any of the years considered. You should be easily able to conclude that from the spreadsheets. Another review of the spreadsheets that I tuned out.

All of the evidence before you will lead to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Lawson evaded income tax and GST and is guilty of as charged and that he counseled tax evasion. I ask you to find him guilty as charged on all of the evidence. Then Crown done at 2:20.

Jury excluded while Judge, Lawson and Crown discussed time issues. Lawson said that he had seven hours of audio from Friday he wanted to review because he has no idea what he said. The time between now and tomorrow morning was insufficient for him to do this so he still wants his day off. There is no way that he can find out by tomorrow morning what he said on Friday. It is unfair and unjust not to give him the time off that he demands. Judge said that he should be able to remember his own evidence. She wants to charge the jury on Wednesday morning so that they can be sequestered and go into deliberations on Wednesday afternoon. So tomorrow only day left to get through Lawson's closing arguments and whatever other objections he comes up with.

As far as I can tell the explanation of why he wants a day off is that he spent much of Friday in constant argument and he professes to have no clue about what he actually said. So he wants to spend the day reviewing the audio discs that now substitute for transcripts and figure out what the hell happened. Of particular interest to him because Friday was when he brought up the nullification argument and got stomped by the judge. Since he is continuing to argue this he needs to know why he failed on Friday.

Jury back at 2:30. Judge said updated plan starting tomorrow. Deliberations and sequestration put back a day from Tuesday to Wednesday. Court will start tomorrow at 1:30. Wednesday morning will be the charge to the jury, should be finished before lunch. Lawson will give his final summary tomorrow. Then Jury excused for day.

With the jury gone back to nullification. Lawson said that on Friday the judge had told him if he mentioned it to the jury he would be breaking law. Judge said that she was firm with him on Friday because he had said that he would tell jury about nullification even if she ordered him not to do it. Judge has case law showing him he can't even mention it. Lawson said he wants to bring a lawyer in to try and persuade the judge that he can argue nullification. Then he saw a loophole. One of the cases said that a defendant's counsel cannot argue nullification. No problem for Keith! He told the judge that he was self-represented so he didn't have a counsel. There was nothing saying that the defendant himself couldn't bring it up. Judge told him that in law a self-represented person was his own counsel. Damn! Judge told him to forget it, he can't do it. Lawson passed up a document to the judge that said there was support in the legal community for nullification. By this point he was getting very agitated so the judge said he needn't revisit last Friday. Lawson ranted that it's "oppressive and injustice" if he essentially do whatever he wants in his own defense. Judge said that the document, from 1980 was not law. And it was written before the Morgentaler and Latimer decisions, the key decisions on nullification, and the law hadn't been change to reflect the document's opinion.

Crown's turn. Nothing to add My Lady. You've correctly expressed the law regarding Morgentaler and Latimer. The jury has the power to nullify but not the right to do it. They are required to decide based on the law. No party has the right to argue jury nullification. Lawson spoke up that he'd read the history of nullification and has something from 1667 that says that it is a common law right. He said to the judge that (contrary to everything the judge has been telling him) the jury has the right to nullify laws but somebody has to tell them of this right and I want you to do it. So what he's demanding here is that the judge, as the only authority allowed to interpret law for the jury, should tell the jury about the laws relating to his charges then tell the jury to feel free to ignore these same laws if they feel in the mood to let Lawson go even if he's guilty. Judge said that she couldn't do it. It was against the law. The document was a 1980 Law Reform Commission working paper. Judge said that the commission might have looked favourably on nullification but that was just opinion, not law, and the paper's conclusion had not been put into law. The law was what the Supreme Court of Canada said that it was from Morgentaler and Latimer.

More whining from Lawson. He wanted an order from the judge telling him specifically what he can't say to the jury. The reason for this little ploy is obvious. If he got it then he could use it to reframe his nullification argument through wording not in the order so that he could try and get it in while having the defense that he hadn't violated the judge's specific orders. Judge refused. Lawson said that he would try not to tell the jury that they can nullify but he's not making any promises.

Then on to the publication ban. Judge had three court decisions on this but I didn't get citations. Judge said that her ban had no basis in common law or statutory law. After the jury is excused to begin deliberations on Wednesday she is willing to discuss the ban. Makes no sense to me, at lest based on my understanding of the ban. As I understand it publication bans automatically lift when the jury goes into sequestration. So judge seems to be saying that we will discuss the ban when it becomes moot since it has already been automatically extinguished.

Lawson then said that he thought that I couldn't publish anything about him until the last of the three trials (Lawson-Millar-Anderson) had been concluded. This will probably be at least six months from now. That's not my understanding. As I understand it I can post all of his hearings as soon as the jury goes into deliberations except the March 22 and March 23 joint voir dire sessions.

And, on that note, day over.

[Burnaby49]

I was under the impression that the Amargosa had closed.

Nope. We spent a night there and it seemed to be doing a fair business. Try this;

http://www.amargosa-opera-house.com/hotel.htm

Several of the guest rooms have murals painted on the walls where cherubs and peacocks and angels frolic. In room 22, a ballerina dances on a ball, and clowns and acrobats perform as a special dedication to RED SKELTON, who was a guest in this room on four occasions.

We got the cherubs.

[Burnaby49]

Hey! You know what's between San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara? That's right, Santa Maria. And you just drove right by. Ok, so we don't don't have any independent brew pubs (although i suppose Figuroa Mountain almost counts), but we do have our famous, or at least widely hyped, tri tip barbecue. Drop me a line next time, ok?

I had no idea you were so close by. Had I known we would have shared a brew somewhere in your town. We had plenty of time that day because the only must-see on the short drive between San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara was Solvang, a fake Danish town tourist-trap my wife had to see. I retain a totally negative opinion of the place from my vain attempts to get a beer. Wife and I arranged to to meet in half an hour in front of this pub.

http://www.solvangbrewing.com/

So I went in to have a beer while waiting. One of the review says "Excellent customer service as soon as you hit the door!" Nothing but outright bullshit. I was shown to a table on a side patio almost immediately and given a beer list. I said I needed a minute to decide and that apparently torpedoed any chance I had of getting a beer. Neither the waitress or any other staff member ever came back to take my order. Sunny day, pleasant spot so I waited until my wife returned and then left.

[Burnaby49]

A request to any viewers who share my problem. No, nothing to do with my drinking or prostate. I use Internet Explorer as a web browser and my posting of the May 02 court hearing doesn't view properly, at least for me. The first two paragraphs and the link I posted don't show on Explorer. However I can see them in FoxFire. If anybody else has this problem let me know.

[notorial dissent]

One of the sites I checked said they'd both closed, which I was sorry to hear, sounds like a delightful place, but then I've been told I have peculiar taste. I'm even more pleased to hear they were wrong. Probably about the Only Reason I'd Have for Visiting That Part of The World.

[wserra]

However I can see them in FoxFire. If anybody else has this problem let me know.

Actually, I see them backwards in FoxFire.

[Chaos]

However I can see them in FoxFire. If anybody else has this problem let me know.

Actually, I see them backwards in FoxFire.

[Burnaby49]

You people should be ashamed of yourselves, making fun of an addled old drunk. Or should that be Drunk old addled? Or knurd dlo deldda? I just can't keep up with modern styling. Perhaps I should ask Keith Lawson; he seems to know a thing or two about it.