April LaJune: I can UCC You!

[Siegfried Shrink]

That is the most soporific transcript I have ever attempted to read. I cannot imagine what the jury made of it, but my impression from some of it was that the witness was prepared and willing to testify to anything provided he could also testify to the opposite thing being equally valid. It actually sent me to sleep while reading it.

I now fully understand the importance of editors and their place in the world, for the chunks I could manage to look at again, de-waffling and discarding the irrelevant would condense that by about two thirds

[Burnaby49]

That is the most soporific transcript I have ever attempted to read. I cannot imagine what the jury made of it, but my impression from some of it was that the witness was prepared and willing to testify to anything provided he could also testify to the opposite thing being equally valid. It actually sent me to sleep while reading it.

I now fully understand the importance of editors and their place in the world, for the chunks I could manage to look at again, de-waffling and discarding the irrelevant would condense that by about two thirds

Well if you want a transcript with some zip in it, one a little out of the ordinary, try this one I posted on Quatloos a while back;

https://imgur.com/a/skffp

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=11167

[wserra]

the witness was prepared and willing to testify to anything provided he could also testify to the opposite thing being equally valid.

Harry Truman's line about desperately needing a one-armed economist, so that the guy couldn't say, "But on the other hand . . ."

[Siegfried Shrink]

Well if you want a transcript with some zip in it, one a little out of the ordinary, try this one I posted on Quatloos a while back;

https://imgur.com/a/skffp

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=11167

I feel there was a bit of lost dignity there.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfLDD7z_q_I

Attack is the best defense, so a somewhat care worn looking Ms Guru is giving her clients victims a good old talking to for not doing it right and then bothering her with calls and e-mails asking for help. The number of uncomplimentary comments seems to be increasing as disillusion sets in.

Now it is $450 for the useless package. I am fairly sure sure it is not illegal to sell something you know to be useless, buyer beware, and all that and as long as you provide the marks with something you are golden.

It has been noted elsewhere that the secret account scam is running out of steam due to bank and Treasury action and the HATJ and Randy show, but if there is still a Hamilton or three to be extracted, it is still worth the effort to seek out the last few suckers.

Strawmen get a passing mention, but the overall impression is of a local librarian handing out a really severe scolding for the late return of a book. When the scam income dries up, diversifying into the dominatrix business might be an avenue worth exploring. "April Showers for Naughty Boys".

[nancydrew]

Take some time and report her to Colorado Attorney General.

https://www.stopfraudcolorado.gov/yourstory

[Siegfried Shrink]

It might come better from someone who was actually an American.

[nancydrew]

I did some quick math on Ms. LaJunes scam! I used the $350 amount, since her fee only went up to $450 recently.
Based on a 5 day work week, plus another 10 daysor so for holidays. That works out to about $875,000 a year of unclaimed, untaxed income.
If it’s 10 packages a month, that’s $42,000 a year. She’s not a scammer! She’s a business woman!

[NYGman]

I did some quick math on Ms. LaJunes scam! I used the $350 amount, since her fee only went up to $450 recently.
Based on a 5 day work week, plus another 10 daysor so for holidays. That works out to about $875,000 a year of unclaimed, untaxed income.
If it’s 10 packages a month, that’s $42,000 a year. She’s not a scammer! She’s a business woman!

An honest lass like her, I am sure she is reporting the income, and paying tax.

[BoomerSooner17]

An honest lass like her, I am sure she is reporting the income, and paying tax.

I read that as an honest ass the first time. It fits better.

[Pottapaug1938]

I did some quick math on Ms. LaJunes scam! I used the $350 amount, since her fee only went up to $450 recently.
Based on a 5 day work week, plus another 10 daysor so for holidays. That works out to about $875,000 a year of unclaimed, untaxed income.
If it’s 10 packages a month, that’s $42,000 a year. She’s not a scammer! She’s a business woman!

An honest lass like her, I am sure she is reporting the income, and paying tax.

WHAT income? $350 (or is it $450?) times zero clients equals a zero balance in the bank -- or does she actually have people stupid and desperate enough to fork over FRNs to her?

[Siegfried Shrink]

I suggest reading the comments on her many videos.Some are probably shills saying how marvellous it all is, but I am prepared to bet that many are entirely dumb enough to be taken in. She has something of a fan base among the far right fake news enthusiasts, a fertile field to develop into a more lucrative harvest as they are already predisposed to belive nonsense and nonsense with added free money is too good to pass up.

Do not apply the standards of a rational person with the active BS detector app installed, apply the standards of people who effectively have no standards worth a damn. People who probably paid money to learn how to have the police drag them from their 'private conveyances' that they were 'travelling' in, and people whose idea of a discreet crime is a half million dollar RV.

I think she is canny enough to have dropped the racket if it was not providing some worthwhile return. I think she is too smart to have filed her nails without destroying the filings, let alone filed any of the nonsense paperwork that might link her with actual attempted theft. The free money comes from the suckers, not the magic paperwork.

[LaVidaRoja]

AND, since the money sent to her is in exchange for NOTHING of any value, it's all gifts and not taxable!!

[Burnaby49]

AND, since the money sent to her is in exchange for NOTHING of any value, it's all gifts and not taxable!!

Not in Canadian Tax Law! The definition of gift used by the Tax Court of Canada has three parts. These were laid out in 1992 in Freidberg, 92 DTC 6031 (F.C.A.);

[4] The Income Tax Act does not define the word "gift", so that the general principles of law with regard to gifts are utilized by the courts in these cases. […] Thus, a gift is a voluntary transfer of property owned by a donor to a donee, in return for which no benefit or consideration flows to the donor (see Heald, J. in The Queen v. Zandstra, [1974] C.T.C. 503, 74 D.T.C. 6416, at page 509 (D.T.C. 6420)). The tax advantage which is received from gifts is not normally considered a “benefit” within this definition, for to do so would render the charitable donations deductions unavailable to many donors.

So a gift requires a transfer of property, it must be voluntary, and the transferor must receive no consideration back for making the gift. In law any consideration, no matter how small, can vitiate a gift. However the Canada Revenue Agency generally doesn't go after genuine donors for trivial things like a free show or a gift bag. But they can. This leads us to Berg;

Berg v. The Queen
2012 TCC 406
http://canlii.ca/t/ftxms

This was a really offensive, blatant tax avoidance donation scam where the donor gave property (timeshare units in a failed development that was never finished) to a compliant charity in return for a very inflated donation receipt based on the claimed value of the property. The entire scheme was undertaken by Mr. Berg to make a profit by getting a tax reduction much greater than the value of the donated property. He claimed donations of almost $5,000,000 but his actual cash cost for the time-share units was one-tenth of that. So how did he justify the $5,000,000 amount? He claimed he'd actually paid for it with one-tenth cash down and an apparently legally binding promissory note for the remainder. Based on that he claimed his purported cost as a donation amount.

The problem from his perspective was that the promissory note and the accompanying agreements were fakes and the CRA knew it. As the Tax Court judge wrote in the decision;

12] The Appellant never had an intention of paying any amounts against the 2002 Promissory Note nor against the 2003 Promissory Note (collectively, the “Promissory Notes”). To date, he has not made any payments thereon.

[13] The Promissory Notes, pledge agreements and guarantee agreements (the “Transaction Documents”) were merely pretenses and did not, at any time, reflect bona fide obligations of the Appellant to YITI or SVG.

[14] Neither the 2002 Guarantee Fee nor the 2003 Guarantee Fee (collectively, the “Guarantee Fees”) were paid in satisfaction of, nor in order to relieve, any obligation of the Appellant under the Promissory Notes. Rather, the Guarantee Fees were paid solely for the purpose of enabling the Appellant to participate in the Donation Program.

So, since he didn't owe the money, the judge disallowed the donation amount in excess of his cash payment for the property. This left how the cash should be treated. The CRA wanted it also disallowed on the basis that Berg had no donation intent and had received property back, the Transaction Documents. Under the Freidberg definition of gift this vitiated the entire gift. But the judge let him have the cash donation for two reasons;

1 - He actually impoverished himself by the cash amount.
2 - He did not receive consideration of any value back because the documents were worthless.

So how does this relate to your comment? It's in the CRA's appeal of the Tax Court decision. The Federal Court of Appeal tossed out the Tax Court decision and disallowed the cash portion too. The FCA said;

[28] In my view, on this record, it was not open to the judge to conclude that the pretence documents were “of no value” at the time that Mr. Berg consummated the “deal.” They clearly had value to Mr. Berg – he paid a substantial fee at that time, well in excess of the value of the timeshare units – and it is clear that the pretence documents were part of the package he received in return. Mr. Berg intended to rely on the pretence documents as though they were genuine, and he did so. He used them to support his initial claim for inflated tax credits. He continued to rely on them throughout the audit and objection, and even to the end of examinations for discovery. The fact that his position became untenable upon discovery of the discharge documents does not change the fact that the pretence documents had value when they were delivered to Mr. Berg. In my view, this case is indistinguishable from Maréchaux, and for that reason the Crown’s appeal should succeed.

[29] The Crown is entitled to succeed for a further reason. In my view, it was not open to the judge on this record to conclude that, at the time of the transfer of the timeshare units to Cheder Chabad, Mr. Berg had the requisite donative intent for the purposes of section 118.1 of the Act. In my view, Mr. Berg did not intend to impoverish himself by transferring the timeshare units to Cheder Chabad. On the contrary, he intended to enrich himself by making use of falsely inflated charitable gift receipts to profit from inflated tax credit claims. He consummated the “deal” solely with that objective, and he acted from beginning to end in a manner intended to achieve that result.

Canada v. Berg
2014 FCA 25
http://canlii.ca/t/g2xg2

So, at least in Canada, the same principle would apply to the suckers paying April. While you wrote "the money sent to her is in exchange for NOTHING of any value " the suckers thought they were paying for something of value so they did not, under Freidman, make a gift. The fact that someone sells you something that turns out to be worthless does not change the nature of the transaction. So April would be taxable on any payments as income.

Note the reference Chedar Chabad in the above quote. It's an Orthodox Jewish school for boys in Toronto which was to a significant extent funded by tax deductible donations. Chedar Chabad lost it's charitable registration because of it's participation in this, and other, similar tax avoidance schemes and donations to it are no longer tax deductible. But they still have the worthless timeshares and other rubbish they accepted as donations.

[LaVidaRoja]

Interesting point - does anyone who sends money to April for her package of documents actually believe that they might work? (Is anyone really that gullible?) If so, have they received value, making it a commercial transaction and April must report the income as gross receipts from sales or services?

[nancydrew]

I did some quick math on Ms. LaJunes scam! I used the $350 amount, since her fee only went up to $450 recently.
Based on a 5 day work week, plus another 10 daysor so for holidays. That works out to about $875,000 a year of unclaimed, untaxed income.
If it’s 10 packages a month, that’s $42,000 a year. She’s not a scammer! She’s a business woman!

An honest lass like her, I am sure she is reporting the income, and paying tax.

WHAT income? $350 (or is it $450?) times zero clients equals a zero balance in the bank -- or does she actually have people stupid and desperate enough to fork over FRNs to her?

She actually does have marks willing to pay for her packages! Sad

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVSA4H6Y0Tk

She is certainly hard working. More plugs for her package, and a shout out to a lawyer, from Hawaii, Moori Bey, who has years of experience in common law courts.

Odd, since there are no common law courts. Moori Bey sounds like an 'indigineous sovereign American moorish national' or whatever they call themselves nowadays. Jaamiah Moori Bey of Hawaii may be the same person. He is on linkedin but I am not a member. I suspect that turning over Mr Bey's stone might dig up more sov-cittery.

Still using the TDAaccount name but now

Joy Schuh asks: April, have you received money from your TDA account yet?

April LaJune


Joy Schuh, you don't get money. You use it like a trust.

Whistle Blower

Most people have started doing a massachusett trust also known as the Common Trust. This Trust has to be on the private side of law.
Mail has to be General Mail and never go into a contract with the public. There is a lot of deffernt kinds of Trust that you can start.

April LaJune


Whistle Blower true!

So, you dont get money, you use it as a trust. That is as clear as mud but helpful user Whistle Blower chimes in about the Common Trust, whatever that is.
I suspect that Moori Bey is as useless as all her other links, such as the fake judge Anna Reizinger, etc.

Some sort of undefined Trust seems a lot less attractive than a shed load of free money, and it has really put me off buying such a great package.

[grixit]

A while back there was a sovcit claim that Paul Revere started a trust that has shielded his descendents from taxation ever since. That might be what they mean by "Massachusetts Trust".

[Siegfried Shrink]

a business in which the investors give management authority to a trustee, and receive "trust certificates" representing their investments. Since they own only the certificates and do not participate in management, the investors can only lose their investment and are not personally liable for any debts of the trust. This is similar to a "limited partnership." A Massachusetts Trust is strictly a business entity and bears no relationship to a personal trust like living and testamentary trusts set up to manage and protect the assets of individuals and provide for eventual distribution.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... etts+Trust

I am sure it is something that can be misapplied by the woo-mongers to mean something else and going by form in these things, will not be used in any legal or useful way anyway.

My guess is that any mug punters would be told they had 'invested' in such a trust with their secret acccount money, and then giver 'certificates', which they would find hard to liquidate because of, you guessed it, reasons.

That's how I'd spin it anyway, I look forward to enlightenment. I bet a week's Admiral's wages in Quatloos that others may have the same idea, but turn it to fleecing real cash.

[BoomerSooner17]

My guess is that any mug punters would be told they had 'invested' in such a trust with their secret acccount money, and then giver 'certificates', which they would find hard to liquidate because of, you guessed it, reasons.

That's how I'd spin it anyway, I look forward to enlightenment. I bet a week's Admiral's wages in Quatloos that others may have the same idea, but turn it to fleecing real cash.

Sucker bet, especially since you basically just gave them the idea.