Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

[Burnaby49]

Glenn Bogue, our dauntless defender, steps up to bat for Debbie even though he is no longer allowed to practice law in British in Columbia. Entirely legit because commenting about a newspaper article can't be construed as practicing law even if Debbie was his client. However, for "Sperm going everywhere!" Glenn, his comments are remarkably constrained:

http://www.abbynews.com/news/trial-ends ... on-scheme/

[Burnaby49]

It is now about 1:30AM on November 2nd in Vancouver, This means that in about 33 hours Debbie's day of reckoning will arrive. At 10:AM on November 3rd Judge Brown of the Supreme Court of British Columbia renders his verdict on Debbie's activities as an enthusiastic follower of Russ Porisky. A very enthusiastic follower. As Russ, the guiding genius of the Paradigm Education Group, fell by the wayside, convicted twice of tax evasion and counseling fraud, and Michael Millar and Keith Lawson, fellow loyal adherents, were in their turn convicted, she alone soldiered on. As far as I'm aware she's the last of the Poriskyites to be tried and she's facing daunting odds. All but three of her fellow Paradigm believers were convicted. Arthur Doerksen, whose trial I avidly followed, went all-in and employed the ultimate loophole by dying during his trial. Frankly, not a strategy I'd recommend. I spent two weeks at his trial that I didn't bother writing up because I couldn't see the point once he made the final exit.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11112&p=227515

Peter Balogh got off on delay. His constitutional rights to speedy justice had been denied by the excessive length of time things had taken since he was charged;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11111&p=236550

Leo Fung, for reason's I don't pretend to understand, was found innocent on the merits. The only Poriskyite to get off on an actual completed trial!

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10477&p=227389

So that leaves Debbie. She put up a valiant defense employing the services of Glenn Bogue, our fearless freeman lawyer;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11412

And David Lindsay, one of the last Freemen guru's left standing;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10022

Our esteemed ex-poster Hilfskreuzer Mowe was a big fan of David. But to no avail. Debbie tried to get off on various technicalities argued by her dynamic duo of representatives but she ended up being tried. While I won't be physically in court when judge Brown reads out his decision I'll get the results in a few hours and, as always, relate them here.

Canadian judges read the entire decision from the bench which must be nerve-wracking for the accused since they don't know the result until the end. As this Australian example shows it can get a touch excessive;

http://loweringthebar.net/2017/10/judge ... inion.html

[The Observer]

Your opinion as to what Debbie will get handed down to her?

[Burnaby49]

Your opinion as to what Debbie will get handed down to her?

She'll be found guilty and the Crown will ask for jail time. I think they'll get it. That's why she's being tried in the Supreme Court of British Columbia rather than the provincial Court. Either court could hear the case but the Supreme Court of British Columbia, being the superior court, can impose higher sentences. It's the Crown's choice which court to use but it's a slog using Supreme Court because they have to proceed by indictment which means a preliminary hearing, always a time-killer. All the Provincial court requires is that the Crown file charges. The Poriskyites charged with just tax evasion were all (as far as I can recall) just tried at Provincial Court. However the Crown has taken all the Poriskyites charged with counseling fraud to Supreme Court and have recommended incarceration.

Nobody really cares all that much about a minor tax evasion charge (Millar only evaded about $24,000 in tax) but the Crown has been relentless about going after the Poriskyite counselors who kept the Paradigm scheme running. Debbie was right up there running seminars, recruiting and teaching students. As involved as Lawson and Millar. Debbie hasn't put up any real defense. She's just engaged in batshit craziness. Since Porisky, Millar, and Lawson, did essentially the same thing (Porisky put up no defense at all) I'm assuming that she'll be treated the same as them. Lawson got eighteen months jail time and Millar was sentenced to two and a half years. So that's Debbie's range. I'd assume more towards the high end.

[The Observer]

However the Crown has taken all the Poriskyites charged with counseling fraud to Supreme Court and have recommended incarceration.

And I think that is a good strategy for the Crown to follow. I recall that we didn't slow down the tax protesters during the 80's and 90's here in the US until the gurus like Schiff, Rose, Bell, and others were chased down and hammered and sentenced. I would see several cases a week being reported on by various Tax or District courts, nowadays we are getting 1-2 per month from small fry.

[Jeffrey]

Is there data that shows a slow down in tax protester filings?

[Burnaby49]

One thing to keep in mind is that Debbie won't be sentenced tomorrow. It's just the verdict. If convicted then she and the Crown lay out their positions on a fit sentence at a sentencing hearing. The judge considers both arguments and comes up with a sentence at a later date. I sat through the process with Porisky, Millar and Lawson but I won't be there for Debbie because her trial is being held forty miles from my front door. Anyone interested in what's involved can read my Lawson or Millar write-ups. I'd recommend Lawson. Millar ignored the opportunity to present mitigating circumstances to the judge and instead spent his time raving about capitalization and the natural man.

[grixit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gck1eSS ... 5Lt9vDx26U

[Burnaby49]

Debbie's Date With Destiny is in one hour but I have head out right now to babysit my grandson until this afternoon. I should have notification of the results by then.

[Burnaby49]

Guilty on all four counts.

[notorial dissent]

Quelle surprise....

I wonder if she'll start filing weird appeals now?

[Burnaby49]

https://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/b-c ... ng-others/

These are the charges she was convicted on;

Ms. Anderson is charged with the following offences on the indictment:

Count 1

Debbie Arlene ANDERSON, of the City of Chilliwack, Province of British Columbia, between December 31, 2004 and May 22, 2008 did make, or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in the making of, false or deceptive statements in her T1 Individual Tax Return for the 2005 and 2006 taxation years, filed as required by the Income Tax Act, by not declaring taxable income in the amount of $113,276.03 for the said taxation years, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to paragraph 239(1)(a) of the said Act.

Count 2
Debbie Arlene ANDERSON, of the City of Chilliwack, Province of British Columbia, between December 31, 2004 and June 16, 2008, did wilfully evade or attempt to evade compliance with the Income Tax Act or payment of taxes imposed by the said Act, by failing to report her taxable income in the amount of $165,731.44 for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 taxation years, and did thereby evade the payment of taxes in the amount of $22,689.90, committing an offence contrary to 239(1)(d) of the said Act.

Count 3
Debbie Arlene ANDERSON, of the City of Chilliwack, Province of British Columbia, between December 31, 2004 and April 1, 2008, did wilfully evade or attempt to evade compliance with the Excise Tax Act or payment or remittance of the Goods and Services Tax, by failing to collect or remit Goods and Services Tax of $12,336.81 on goods and services sold, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to paragraph 327(1)(c) of the said Act.

Count 4
Debbie Arlene ANDERSON, at or near the City of Chilliwack, Province of British Columbia and elsewhere, between December 31, 2001 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.

[The Observer]

Quelle surprise....

I wonder if she'll start filing weird appeals now?

From the news article:

As soon as Brown finished reading his decision, Anderson said she planned to appeal the conviction. It was explained to her that she first needed to be sentence [sic], or an adjournment applied for after a sentencing hearing.

I can't imagine that she will file an appeal that will make any sense.

[notorial dissent]

Quelle surprise....

I wonder if she'll start filing weird appeals now?

From the news article:

As soon as Brown finished reading his decision, Anderson said she planned to appeal the conviction. It was explained to her that she first needed to be sentence [sic], or an adjournment applied for after a sentencing hearing.

I can't imagine that she will file an appeal that will make any sense.

Considering the Poriskyite track record I would say that is a for sure and certain sucker bet of more crunchy goodness to come.

[Burnaby49]

I stand corrected on this comment;

She'll be found guilty and the Crown will ask for jail time. I think they'll get it. That's why she's being tried in the Supreme Court of British Columbia rather than the provincial Court. Either court could hear the case but the Supreme Court of British Columbia, being the superior court, can impose higher sentences. It's the Crown's choice which court to use but it's a slog using Supreme Court because they have to proceed by indictment which means a preliminary hearing, always a time-killer. All the Provincial court requires is that the Crown file charges. The Poriskyites charged with just tax evasion were all (as far as I can recall) just tried at Provincial Court. However the Crown has taken all the Poriskyites charged with counseling fraud to Supreme Court and have recommended incarceration.

My explanation about how cases get selected for the Supreme Court of British Columbia was almost entirely wrong. I was corrected by someone who actually knows how the system works rather than just making wild guesses.

Turns out it was not up to the Crown to decide which courts would handle the Poriskyites. All of the Educators were charged with counselling fraud over $5,000 which is a strictly indictable offence, so the Crown had no choice but to proceed by indictment. Arthur Doerkson, as an example, was not charged with counselling so the Crown proceeded summarily through the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

In indictable matters, with few exceptions, it is the accused who gets to choose whether the trial will be before either a provincial court judge, a superior court judge or a superior court judge and jury. Many of the Educators refused to elect which they wanted and, as a result, were deemed to have elected trial by superior court judge and jury. Mr. Millar and Ms. Anderson exercised their right to re-elect and requested trial by superior court judge alone.

Russell Porisky and Elaine Gould got off the first time that they were tried because the B.C. Court of Appeal decided they hadn't been given a fair chance to elect. Next time around the court made sure they'd made a definite choice and they chose a jury trial. With exactly the same result as his first trial by judge alone.

[Burnaby49]

On April 11, 2017, I posted this;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747#p244255

There were two issues at this court hearing. The first was an attempt by Glenn Bogue to get Justice Groberman to recluse himself from the hearing on the basis he was hopelessly bias because he'd actually been involved in a totally unrelated court hearing in the past. The second issue was Glenn's attempt to get the Court of Appeal to hear Debbie's appeal from a decision that was part of the ongoing process of her tax evasion and counseling fraud trial. The fact that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the issue was of total irrelevance to Glenn and his shaky understanding of basic law. He wanted justice not excuses.

Justice Groberman gave an oral decision on the recusal issue at the hearing. As I wrote;

Back to Justice Groberman "The issues today regarding jurisdiction is far afield from Tsilhqot'in and counsel has not pointed out any support for this in Tsilhqot'in". Then Justice Groberman read out a very well crafted decision denying Bogue's request that he recuse himself. He said that a reasonable person would not infer bias on his part in respect to the issue of aboriginal Sovereignty based on a decision he wrote in which Sovereignty was not an issue. Shockingly the other two judges were silent throughout this travesty. There wasn't a wild cry of outrage from them about the injustice inflicted on Debbie by Groberman remaining on the bench. This is clearly grounds for Bogue to seek Leave to Appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada! Except for the unfortunate fact that he can no longer practice law in Canada. We'll get to that.

The jurisdictional issue was also rejected. I've previously posted the published decision regarding jurisdiction;

R. v. Anderson, 2017
BCCA 153
http://canlii.ca/t/h38c2

Now the second shoe has dropped and the court has released the reclusal decision;

R. v. Anderson
2017 BCCA 154
http://canlii.ca/t/h43dt

[Burnaby49]

Debbie's sentencing hearing has started. Crown wants four and a half years jail time, no conditional sentencing.

Crown counsel is asking the BC Supreme Court to sentence a proponent of a tax evasion scheme to four and a half years in jail.

Crown also asked Justice Neill Brown on Jan. 22 to hand Anderson a fine of just over $35,000. Of that, $22,689.90 is 100 per cent of the income tax she avoided over the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. The further $12,736.82 is for non-remitted GST.

Crown asked for a one-year sentence and a fine for the making false statements under the income tax act; one year to run concurrent for failure to make GST payments; and 3.5 years to run consecutive for the more serious counselling others to commit fraud under the criminal code.

https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/n ... x-evasion/

I think a bit of an overreach given that Porisky, the instigator of the whole scheme, only got four years. But no harm in asking. And Debbie was a significant player.

[concerned]

I thought she was to be sentenced March 5, 2018, so what gives now, anyone know?

[Burnaby49]

I thought she was to be sentenced March 5, 2018, so what gives now, anyone know?

She's being sentenced 10AM tomorrow, March 8th. I unfortunately won't be there because it's 60 miles away however I'll post when I get the results.

[Burnaby49]

Debbie's sentencing hearing has started. Crown wants four and a half years jail time, no conditional sentencing.

Crown counsel is asking the BC Supreme Court to sentence a proponent of a tax evasion scheme to four and a half years in jail.

Crown also asked Justice Neill Brown on Jan. 22 to hand Anderson a fine of just over $35,000. Of that, $22,689.90 is 100 per cent of the income tax she avoided over the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. The further $12,736.82 is for non-remitted GST.

Crown asked for a one-year sentence and a fine for the making false statements under the income tax act; one year to run concurrent for failure to make GST payments; and 3.5 years to run consecutive for the more serious counselling others to commit fraud under the criminal code.

https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/n ... x-evasion/

I think a bit of an overreach given that Porisky, the instigator of the whole scheme, only got four years. But no harm in asking. And Debbie was a significant player.

I'm quoting myself to point out that I screwed up again. Russell Porisky did not get 4 years as I stated above. He got 5½ years in total, 4 for counseling fraud and 18 months for evasion. I forgot the evasion. Crown seeks 4½ for Anderson in total, 3.5 for counselling fraud and 12 months for evasion. So Crown is shooting for one year less for Debbie than Porisky's sentence. We'll see how it works out tomorrow.